parks master plan

CITY OF LA MESA
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Final
February 2012
The Team
City of La Mesa
Bill Chopyk, Community Development Director
Yvonne Garre , Assistant City Manager / Community Services Director
Gregory P. Humora, Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Chris Jacobs, Senior Planner
Erin Jones, Crime Preven on Specialist
Kaaren McElroy, Administra ve Analyst
Mike Pacheco, Project Manager / Community Services Manager
Community Volunteer Group
Karen Amoroso
Kathleen Brand
Christopher Geronimo
Linda Johnson
Jason Lee
Patrick Valerio
Jon Wreschinsky
Janet Arnold
Harry Doering
Mason Herron
Jim Langford
Jefferson Isai Rosa
Ashley Westman
KTU+A
Michael Singleton, Principal
Cheri Blatner, Senior Associate
Brooke Pietz, Project Manager
Joe Punsalan, Associate
Catrine Machi, Senior Planner
Tasha Davis, GIS Analyst
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Ryan Birdseye, CEQA Manager
A Healthy Works℠ program made possible by funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the County of San Diego and the San Diego Associa on of Governments.
This publica on was supported by the Coopera ve Agreement Number 1U58DP002496-01 from the Centers
for Disease Control and Preven on through the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Its
contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the
Centers for Disease Control Preven on.
ii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1 1
1.1 Input Process ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Parks Master Plan Vision.......................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Plan Goals and Supporting Objectives ........................................................... 1-2
1.5 Healthy Community Planning Initiatives .................................................... 1-6
1.6 Communities Putting Prevention to Work ................................................ 1-8
1.7 Existing Setting ............................................................................................................ 1-8
1.7.1 City of La Mesa General Profile ...................................................................................................1-9
1.7.2 Demographic Overview ......................................................................................................................1-9
1.7.3 Previous Park Planning Efforts ..................................................................................................1-9
1.7.4 Ongoing Park Development Efforts ........................................................................................ 1-10
1.8 Community Input Summary ...................................................................................1-11
1.8.1 Public Workshop Input .................................................................................................................... 1-12
1.8.2 Boards and Commission Input .................................................................................................... 1-12
1.8.3 Community Volunteer Efforts (Field Work) ...................................................................... 1-13
1.8.4 Questionnaire Summary ................................................................................................................... 1-13
iii
Chapter 2
2.0 Existing Planning and Policy Framework..................................................2-1
2.1 Existing Policies ...........................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 City of La Mesa General Plan.........................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Park in Lieu and Impact Fees ..........................................................................................................2-2
2.1.3 "ready...set...Live Well" Initiative...................................................................................................2-3
2.1.4 Crime Prevention and Operating Hours ...............................................................................2-3
2.1.5 City Of La Mesa Water Conservation Ordinance .............................................................2-3
2.2 Park and Recreation Requirements ................................................................2-4
2.2.1 Park Classifications ............................................................................................................................2-4
2.2.2 Population Based Park Standards ..............................................................................................2-6
2.2.3 Existing Programs to Encourage Active Healthy Living ..........................................2-8
Chapter 3
3.0 Inventory and Existing Conditions ................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Existing Park Profiles ................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Northwest Quadrant ......................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.1.2 Northeast Quadrant......................................................................................................................... 3-13
3.1.3 Southwest Quadrant ........................................................................................................................ 3-21
3.1.5 Southeast Quadrant ......................................................................................................................... 3-29
3.2 Existing Parks Adjacent to La Mesa ................................................................3-35
3.2.1 Lake Murray .............................................................................................................................................. 3-35
3.2.2 Mission Trails Regional Park ....................................................................................................... 3-35
3.2.3 Eucalyptus Park...................................................................................................................................... 3-35
3.4 Existing Parks Within San Diego County...................................................3-35
3.5 Existing Joint Use Agreements ...........................................................................3-36
iv
Chapter 4
4.0 Parks Distribution and Access Analysis ........................................................ 4-1
4.1 Geographic Modeling ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Model Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Access Analysis ................................................................................................................ 4-2
4.2.1 Barriers to Walking to Parks ........................................................................................................ 4-2
4.2.2 Barriers to Cycling to Parks ......................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.3 Existing Barriers that are Not Likely to Change ............................................................ 4-2
4.2.4 Existing Barriers that Can Be Changed ................................................................................. 4-3
4.2.5 Role of Transit in Access .................................................................................................................. 4-3
4.2.6 Existing Park Service Area Analysis ............................................................................................ 4-4
4.2.7 Walking Speeds and Access Distances ...................................................................................... 4-6
4.2.8 Riding Speeds and Access Distances .......................................................................................... 4-7
4.3 Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-7
4.3.1 Residential Population Densities ............................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.2 Population Growth Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-12
4.3.3 Population Growth by Service Area ........................................................................................ 4-13
4.4 Park Program and Facilities Analysis ............................................................4-15
4.4.1 Vacant City-Owned Land ................................................................................................................ 4-15
4.4.2 Facilities and Program Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-16
v
Chapter 5
5.0 Plan Recommendations ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Parks Master Plan ......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Recommended Park Expansions ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 recommended Joint Use Agreements ......................................................................................... 5-7
5.1.3 Proposed Park Access Improvements ....................................................................................... 5-10
5.1.1 Proposed Park Locations ............................................................................................................... 5-40
5.2 Project Prioritization.............................................................................................5-46
5.3 Implementation.............................................................................................................5-46
5.3.1 Immediate Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 5-47
5.3.2 Mid and Long-Term Recommendations ............................................................................... 5-47
5.3.3 Implementation phasing plan ...................................................................................................... 5-47
5.4 Funding Sources ........................................................................................................5-48
5.4.1 Public Funding....................................................................................................................................... 5-48
5.4.2 Funding for Access and Active Transportation Improvements .......................... 5-48
Figures
Figure 2.1—Existing Urban Walking Trails ................................................................................2-11
Figure 3.1—City Quadrants..................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3.2— Existing Network .............................................................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3.3—Existing Conditions Composite Park Service Area ....................................... 3-6
Figure 3.4—Existing Park Service Area- Aztec Park .................................................................. 3-8
Figure 3.5—Existing Park Service Area- Jackson Park ..........................................................3-10
Figure 3.6—Existing Park Service Area- Sunset Park .............................................................3-12
Figure 3.7—Existing Park Service Area- Briercrest Park ....................................................3-14
Figure 3.8—Existing Park Service Area- Harry Griffin Park ............................................3-16
Figure 3.9—Existing Park Service Area- La Mesita Park .......................................................3-18
Figure 3.10—Existing Park Service Area- Northmont Park ..............................................3-20
Figure 3.11—Existing Park Service Area- Highwood Park ...............................................3-22
vi
Figure 3.12—Existing Park Service Area- Rolando Park .....................................................3-24
Figure 3.13—Existing Park Service Area- Sunshine Park .....................................................3-26
Figure 3.14—Existing Park Service Area- Vista La Mesa ........................................................3-28
Figure 3.15—Existing Park Service Area- Collier Park .........................................................3-30
Figure 3.16—Existing Park Service Area- MacArthur Park ................................................3-32
Figure 3.17—Existing Park Service Area- Porter Park ..........................................................3-34
Figure 4.1—Existing Composite Park Service Area- 1 Mile Distance ........................... 4-5
Figure 4.2—Existing Composite Park Service Area- 15 Minute Walk Time Distance
(using existing walkway network) .................................................................................................... 4-6
Figure 4.3—Population Densities- 0 to 4 Years Old ................................................................. 4-9
Figure 4.4—Population Densities- 5 to 14 Years Old .............................................................. 4-9
Figure 4.5—Population Densities- 15 to 19 Years Old ..........................................................4-10
Figure 4.6—Population Densities- 20 to 44 Years Old ..........................................................4-10
Figure 4.7—Population Densities- 45 to 64 Years Old ..........................................................4-11
Figure 4.8—Population Densities- 65 and Older .....................................................................4-11
Figure 4.9—Future Population and Land use Growth .......................................................4-13
Figure 4.10—Vacant City-Owned Lands ........................................................................................4-15
Figure 5.1— City Quadrant...................................................................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5.2—Existing Joint use Service Area................................................................................... 5-7
Figure 5.3—Potential Joint use Schools Service Area........................................................... 5-9
Figure 5.4—Service Area Expanded with Improvements ....................................................5-26
Figure 5.5—Comparison of Existing and Improved Service Area .................................5-27
Figure 5.6—Open Space Land Use .........................................................................................................5-30
Figure 5.7—Recommended Composite Urban Trail Loops ................................................5-38
Figure 5.8—Waite Property ....................................................................................................................5-41
Figure 5.9—SANDAG Smart Growth and Mixed Use Transit Corridors .................5-42
Figure 5.10—Private Development Parks .......................................................................................5-43
Figure 5.11—Safe Routes Overlay.......................................................................................................5-47
vii
Tables
Table 2.1—Population Based Park Standards for Facilities and Activities ................... 2-7
Table 2.2— Existing Park Facilities and Activities in La Mesa ................................................. 2-8
Table 2.3—Businesses Offering Fitness Services ............................................................................. 2-13
Table 3.1—Existing Public Facilities Summary by Quadrant ..................................................... 3-3
Table 3.2—Existing Public and Private* Facilities Summary by Quadrant ....................... 3-4
Table 3.3—Existing Facilities- Aztec Park .............................................................................................. 3-7
Table 3.4—Existing Facilities- Jackson Park ........................................................................................ 3-9
Table 3.5—Existing Facilities- Sunset Park ......................................................................................... 3-11
Table 3.6—Existing Facilities- Briercrest Park ................................................................................ 3-13
Table 3.7—Existing Facilities- Harry Griffin Park ........................................................................ 3-15
Table 3.8—Existing Facilities- La Mesita Park ................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3.9—Existing Facilities- Northmont Park ............................................................................ 3-19
Table 3.10—Existing Facilities- Highwood Park ............................................................................. 3-21
Table 3.11—Existing Facilities- Rolando Park ................................................................................. 3-23
Table 3.12—Existing Facilities- Sunshine Park ................................................................................. 3-25
Table 3.13—Existing Facilities- Vista La Mesa Park ........................................................................ 3-27
Table 3.14—Existing Facilities- Collier Park ..................................................................................... 3-29
Table 3.15—Existing Facilities- MacArthur Park............................................................................ 3-31
Table 3.16—Existing Facilities- Porter Park ...................................................................................... 3-33
Table 3.17—Joint Use Agreements ............................................................................................................. 3-36
Table 4.1—2030 Age Population Density Summary ........................................................................... 4-8
Table 4.2—Population Analysis by Quadrant .................................................................................... 4-12
Table 4.3—Population Growth by Service Area Analysis- Using Existing Conditions
of Walkway System
.............................................................................................................. 4-14
Table 5.1—Population Growth by Service Area Analysis- Based on Improved Access
Conditions
.............................................................................................................. 5-28
Table 5.2—Federal Park Funding Sources .......................................................................................... 5-48
Table 5.3—State Park Funding Sources ................................................................................................. 5-49
Table 5.4—Local Park Funding Sources................................................................................................ 5-49
viii
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Chapter 1
1.0 Introduction
As part of the City’s Centennial celebra on in 2012, La Mesa is developing this Parks Master Plan
to an cipate the needs and desires of a growing and changing demographic popula on. A primary
purpose of the plan is to iden fy park and open space improvements that will carry the City into
the next century.
This master plan creates a roadmap for upgrades, expansions, and poten al addi ons to the City of
La Mesa’s parks system to meet both current and future community needs for parks, open space,
and urban respite areas that contribute to the public's health. It includes an overview of the exis ng
parks and policies of the City of La Mesa, in addi on to recommenda ons that will improve access
to parks, improve park facili es, and iden fy funding sources to implement the plan.
1.1 Input Process
This Parks Master Plan was developed over an eight month period from May 2011 to December
2011 for the City of La Mesa. During this period, efforts were guided by City staff and input was
provided by community members of the City of La Mesa. Addi onal efforts a er December 2011 included public hearings and public advocacy for the Master Plan and the adop on of both the Parks
Master Plan and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Ini al Determina on Checklists.
FEBRUARY 2012
1-1
CITY OF LA MESA
1.2 Project Purpose
To best serve its cons tuents, it is important for the City to maintain a wide range of different types
of parks with a broad distribu on throughout the en re City. This distribu on assures that parks
and open spaces are easily accessible by walking or biking, especially near residen al developments. This project not only iden fies deficiencies of parks and access issues to parks, but it also
makes recommenda ons on how to come closer to mee ng the quan ty, distribu on and quality of
these park resources. The plan provides tools on how the City may help to refine a park system that
contributes to healthy lifestyles for its ci zens.
1.3 Parks Master Plan Vision
A "Vision Statement" for the Parks Master Plan was developed with public and staff input. The plan
and vision statement supports the City of La Mesa General Plan.
A City that encourages ac ve and healthy lifestyles by offering a diverse
range of recrea onal ac vi es and facili es in La Mesa.
1.4 Plan Goals and Supporting Objectives
The overall goal of the Parks Master Plan is to create a roadmap for upgrades, expansion, poten al
addi ons, and improved access to the City of La Mesa’s park facili es. This goal includes the community's needs for easy access to parks, open space, and urban respite areas that can contribute to
the public's health.
Goal 1: To create a network of public parks and public spaces throughout the City that are
convenient, accessible and beneficial to all segments of the community.
Objec ve 1.1: Endeavor to provide a park, public space or open space within a 15-minute walk
of all residents. This objecƟve seeks to amend the General Plan policy of providing recreaƟonal
faciliƟes within a one-mile radius of all residenƟal units and do a beƩer job of achieving the
goal.
Policy 1.1.1: Encourage the distribu on of a variety of park types and sizes throughout
the City.
Policy 1.1.2: Encourage the development of non-tradi onal park types, including green
belts, linear parks, urban trails, mini-parks, and pocket parks, to meet this standard.
Policy 1.1.3: Work to develop and improve connec vity to parks.
Policy 1.1.4: As feasible, ensure each of the four quadrants of the City provides equal
recrea onal opportuni es and access to a broad range of recrea onal facili es for the
residents of that quadrant.
1-2
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Objec ve 1.2: Develop a variety of park types to encourage a range of passive and acƟve recreaƟonal uses and healthy acƟviƟes.
Policy 1.2.1: Include both passive and ac ve recrea onal opportuni es within park
sites when space allows.
Policy 1.2.2: Design and improve parks to accommodate a community varying in age,
athle c ability, physical agility and recrea onal interest.
Policy 1.2.3: Create a Community Gardening Program for all ages. Iden fy exis ng and
poten al community garden sites on public property, in parks, near senior and community centers, within public easements and rights-of-way, located on surplus property, or
jointly managed on school sites.
Objec ve 1.3: ConƟnue to work with the school districts and other public agencies to cooperaƟvely develop and maintain open space and recreaƟonal faciliƟes on available school property
that will maximize open space and recreaƟonal opportuniƟes
Goal 2: To promote and encourage the provision of open space and recrea on areas as
part of private developments, thereby supplemen ng and complemen ng the City’s public parks and open space system.
Objec ve 2.1: Encourage the use of community recreaƟonal space associated with private
developments.
Policy 2.1.1: Promote backyard gardens; and provide informa on and resources to
encourage gardening.
Policy 2.1.2: Allow mul family residen al developments the ability to iden fy appropriate outdoor space to allow garden plots for residents.
Policy 2.1.3: Con nue to require the provision of open space and recrea on areas on
private proper es through the use of zoning and subdivision ordinances for setbacks
and lot coverage.
Policy 2.1.4: Ensure that required on-site open spaces are usable open spaces that can
serve as extensions of adjacent open space areas when applying design standards to
new developments.
Policy 2.1.5: Con nue to require mul family residen al projects to provide usable onsite open space area as a supplement to the public parks and open space system.
FEBRUARY 2012
1-3
CITY OF LA MESA
Goal 3: To work with regional programs to protect the remaining areas of na ve vegetaon and undeveloped rural areas for their significant open space, biological values, and a
visual break from urban environments.
Objec ve 3.1: Incorporate passive open space and natural areas into the design of parks to provide a balanced range of open space values for the use and enjoyment of residents.
Policy 3.1.1: Encourage the maintenance and preserva on of the slopes within the City
canyon areas.
Policy 3.1.2: Should the City obtain controlling interest in Padre Bay Arm, an effort will
be made to preserve and incorporate the na ve vegeta on into any recrea onal facilies proposed.
Policy 3.1.3: Con nue to maintain or increase a visual and physical connec on to Lake
Murray and Mission Trails Regional Park where it is adjacent to the City.
Goal 4: Provide parks, public spaces, open space, and ac ve recrea onal facili es that
are accessible by walking, transit, or cars.
Objec ve 4.1: Create park sites that are easily accessible from public streets on as many sides
as possible.
Policy COS -4.1.1: Look for opportuni es to increase connec vity to parks.
Policy COS -4.1.2: Park entrances should be well marked with signage, well lit, easily
iden fiable, and universally accessible.
Objec ve 4.2: Encourage and develop the use of alternaƟve transportaƟon, including walking,
biking, and public transportaƟon, to gain access to parks, open space, and recreaƟonal faciliƟes.
Policy 4.2.1: Reduce the number of barriers and safety issues along walkways, as well
as improve bike facili es that will encourage access to parks.
Policy 4.2.2: Reduce the number of gaps in the pedestrian and bike networks to increase connec ons, safety, convenience and universal access.
Policy 4.2.3: Implement the policies and ac ons iden fied in the Bicycle Facili es and
Alterna ve Transporta on Plan that focus on improving access to parks, open space,
and recrea onal facili es.
Policy 4.2.4: Integrate urban forestry concepts and benefits into walkability improvements, as well as into park development or renova on ac vi es.
1-4
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Objec ve COS -4.3: Adopt a wayfinding program to direct those who live and work in La Mesa
to the City’s sites that provide opportuniƟes for health and wellness programs and physical
acƟvity.
Policy COS -4.3.1: Con nue to enhance and develop new urban walking trails and loops
to encourage walking.
Policy COS -4.3.2: City park and recrea onal facili es should be well-marked and highly
visible from streets, sidewalks and bike paths to assure a safe public environment.
Objec ve 4.4: Provide safe and appealing opportuniƟes to walk and bike to parks in order to
encourage exercise and maintain healthy living habits.
Policy 4.4.1: Support the comple on of infrastructure upgrades that improve pedestrian and bicyclist’s safety to and from school (e.g., implementa on of Safe Routes to
Schools recommenda ons, etc.)
Policy 4.4.2: Locate parks near schools when possible.
Policy 4.4.3: Con nue to pursue joint use agreements with local schools to allow school
property to be available for public use outside of school hours.
Goal 5: To provide safe parks, open space, and ac ve recrea onal facili es.
Objec ve 5.1: Public and private development and infrastructure should be designed, constructed, and maintained to maximize safety and security.
Policy 5.1.1: Encourage developers to incorporate building and site design techniques
that reduce crime, such as u lizing Crime Preven on through Environmental Design
(CPTED) strategies.
Policy 5.1.2: Increase safety and security in public parks (including parks, recrea onal
facili es, walkways, and trails) by providing adequate ligh ng; maintaining landscaping to maximize visibility; removing graffi as soon as possible; removing trash, debris,
weeds, etc. from public areas with ongoing maintenance of those public areas; and
conduc ng regular police patrols and providing public safety informa on.
Policy 5.1.3: Partner with the community through programs that ac vate spaces or provide more eyes on the public facility, such as neighborhood watch groups.
Policy COS -5.1.4: Design facili es to be universally accessible for seniors, children and
those with disabili es.
FEBRUARY 2012
1-5
CITY OF LA MESA
Goal 6: To provide and develop well-maintained parks, open space, and ac ve recrea on
facili es.
Objec ve COS -6.1: ConƟnue to improve exisƟng and new park faciliƟes to maximize the open
space and recreaƟonal benefits to the community while minimizing maintenance and operaƟng
costs.
Policy 6.1.1: Inves gate and evaluate opportuni es and incen ves for other agencies,
non-profits, private businesses, and user groups to par cipate in the maintenance and
replacement costs of parks, open space, and recrea onal facili es.
Policy 6.1.2: Maintain the City's park and open space in a manner that encourages the
use and enjoyment by residents and visitors while protec ng the long-term aesthe c
and environmental quality of these areas.
Policy 6.1.3: Con nue to use the Capital Improvements Program to plan for the idenfica on of available resources for park facility repair, upgrades, and replacements
through the budget process.
Policy 6.1.4: Con nue to support the Public Works Department in their efforts to
maintain exis ng parks to the highest standard feasible, given funding limita ons set
through the budget process. Include budgetary considera ons for the scheduling of
new park acquisi on and development.
Policy 6.1.5: Con nue to search for opportuni es in grants and to encourage private
dona ons. Iden fy other effec ve funding sources for park and recrea onal programs,
such as trusts and other fund raising ac vi es.
Policy 6.1.5: Con nue to u lize park acquisi on and improvement fees and park in-lieu
and impact fees to mi gate the impact of new development on parks.
Policy 6.1.6: Partner with the La Mesa Park and Recrea on Founda on to expand funding opportuni es through their resources.
1.5 Healthy Community Planning Initiatives
Obesity is the largest na onal epidemic and public health problem facing America today. Approximately 60 million adults, or 32.9% of the adult popula on, are now obese, which represents a doubling of the rate since 1980.¹ In a li le over thirty years, the rate of obesity in children has tripled,²
and one in five four-year-olds are obese. ³ If obesity rates con nue at this magnitude, the current
genera on of children will live shorter lives than their parents. ⁴ Obesity is as much a local issue as
it is a na onal issue. The East Region of San Diego County is where obesity rates are highest, with
40% of the adult popula on overweight, and an addi onal 23% considered obese. The region also
has the highest rates of diabetes and heart disease in the County, with 9% of adults diagnosed with
diabetes and 8% diagnosed with heart disease. However, the percent of deaths in the East Region
due to chronic disease decreased from 63% in 2000 to 56% in 2009, while the total number of
deaths from all causes has remained stable. And while this rate reduc on may not be immediately
a ributable to access to a healthier lifestyle, the East Region, and par cularly La Mesa, has been
working to improve community wellness op ons in the community since 2006. ⁵
¹ Ogden CL, et al. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. JAMA 295: 1549-1555. 2006.
² Centers for Disease Control, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/prevalence.html)
³ Tanner, L. Obesity: 1 in 5 kids. Child obesity apparent by age 4. Associated Press, April 7, 2009.
⁴ Olshansky, SJ et al. A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century. N Engl J Med 2005 352: 1138-1145.
⁵ 3-4-50 Chronic Disease in San Diego Region, East Brief, 2011
1-6
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The City of La Mesa Council adopted a Community Wellness Policy in July 2006 based on input provided through mee ngs with key community stakeholders. In 2007, the City and the La Mesa-Spring
Valley School District par cipated in a technical assistance grant program through the Na onal
League of Ci es, involving the crea on of policy and work teams to develop cohesive strategies that
incorporate wellness efforts into a consolidated work plan aimed at crea ng healthful community
environments.
These efforts led to the establishment of the ready…set…Live Well community wellness program. By
developing policy strategies for increasing healthy ea ng and physical ac vity, ready...set...Live Well
is an ini a ve working to engage schools, health care, business, and faith communi es to coordinate with residents and local government on ac ons to create healthier community environments
and reverse the trends of obesity and chronic disease in La Mesa.
The strategic goals of this ini a ve include:
•
Support policy and environmental changes that increase the capacity of neighborhood
environments in La Mesa and Spring Valley to support healthy ea ng and ac ve lifestyles of
residents.
•
Support policy and environmental changes that increase the capacity of schools, a er
school programs, and child care providers to promote healthy behaviors among all grade
levels.
•
Collaborate with health and fitness professionals to increase the promo on of healthy behaviors in professional se ngs and advocate for healthier community environments.
•
Build on local collabora on to develop a community-wide approach, including a Community
Ambassador Program, as well as faith and business sectors, that will promote and sustain
the Live Well IniƟaƟve in La Mesa and Spring Valley.
•
Employ ini a ve-level strategies that maximize the efficiencies of current resources for Live
Well, while minimizing the impact on local resources.
In addi on to these efforts, the updated version of the La Mesa General Plan includes a new Health
and Wellness Element to address public wellness as it relates to community design.
This quality of life objec ve can be influenced directly by decisions the C y makes in mee ng a
variety of needs in the community, such as walkability, safe routes to schools, parks, and transit
improved access to parks.
FEBRUARY 2012
1-7
CITY OF LA MESA
1.6 Communities Putting Prevention to Work
Healthy Works℠ is a countywide ini a ve making environmental changes promo ng wellness and
addressing the na onwide obesity epidemic. Healthy Works℠, administered by the County of San
Diego Health and Human Services Agency, is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 and included the University of California San Diego, SANDAG, San Diego County Office
of Educa on, Community Health Improvement Partners, and San Diego State University, along with
numerous community-based partners. The project is part of the County's Live Well, San Diego!
"Building BeƩer Health" ini a ve, a 10-year vision for healthy communi es.
In 2011, the San Diego Associa on of Governments (SANDAG) awarded $1.04 million in grant programs to local agencies, tribal governments, community programs, and school districts to promote
public health considera ons in planning, ac ve transporta on, and safe routes to school projects.
One of these grants included the Healthy Works℠ Communi es Pu ng Preven on to Work program. The City of La Mesa was awarded one of these grants under the Healthy Community Planning
Grant from SANDAG for the purpose of preparing this citywide Parks Master Plan.
1.7 Existing Setting
The City of La Mesa, called the Jewel of the Hills, is located in eastern San Diego County and is considered to be the gateway into east county. The Village of La Mesa is part of the historic downtown
and is host to a variety of restaurants, local businesses, and weekly farmer's market. The downtown
area is an a rac on and creates a sense of community. Its mild climate, walkable, tree-lined streets,
and quaint neighborhoods make it ideal for outdoor recrea onal ac vi es.
An overall view of downtown La Mesa
1-8
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.7.1 City of La Mesa General Profile
The City sits just east of the City of San Diego almost 15 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, and is bordered by Lemon Grove to the southwest, El Cajon on the northeast, and the County of San Diego to
the southeast. The nine square miles that make up the city are divided by two freeways, Interstate
8 running east/west, and State Route 125 running north/south. The public transit system includes
two trolley lines and five trolley stops, and six different bus routes that provide addi onal access
throughout the City.
1.7.2 Demographic Overview
Popula on and housing data es mates from 2010 SANDAG reports indicate the current popula on
of La Mesa is at 57,650 people. The majority of the popula on ranges between the ages of 30-59,
with a median age of 39.7, but also includes a significant number of individuals over 65 and under
14. The majority of the popula on lives in single-family detached and mul -family housing. Of the
25,000 housing units in La Mesa, approximately half of those units are mul -family dwellings.
1.7.3 Previous Park Planning Efforts
Needs Assessment Plan
In 2001, the City conducted an open space needs assessment. This study mainly focused on ac ve
recrea onal sports fields. However, results of that study indicated the western sec on of the City
was not well served by parks in general.
It also suggested that La Mesa needed a soccer complex based on a large number of residents parcipa ng in soccer and the reduc on in availability of high school soccer fields. Sunshine Park was
iden fied as an ideal loca on because of its flat topography.
The study indicated ball fields throughout the City needed refurbishment. Also, the study indicated
the replacement or enhancement of: fencing; turf and irriga on system renova ons; dugout and
spectator areas; on-site equipment; maintenance storage; shade tree plan ngs; concession facilies; and other site ameni es.
In addi on, the report made general recommenda ons for the enhancement of individual parks.
These recommenda ons included:
•
Renovated restroom faciliƟes: provide adequate numbers of restroom fixtures based on
park usage, ligh ng, security, supplies, privacy, etc. Drinking fountains should also be provided at each park.
•
IdenƟficaƟon and direcƟonal signage: provide consistent informa on throughout the
parks, both on the park perimeter, as with current signage, and also at a central loca on.
This would include iden fica on signage, park name, hours of opera on, City of La Mesa
iden fica on, encouraged and restricted ac vi es, contact informa on, special events, and
a place for pos ng local announcements, flyers, etc.
•
SeaƟng: provide adequate areas for rest, relaxa on, and observa on of other park uses,
especially children’s play areas, as well as accommoda ng elderly and the physically challenged. Shade should be provide where possible.
•
CirculaƟon: provide clearly marked, obvious paths, hard or so surface as appropriate, with
defined edges, night ligh ng if appropriate, and bike racks at entry points.
FEBRUARY 2012
1-9
CITY OF LA MESA
•
Group picnic: provide picnic areas on hard surface pads if appropriate, with adjacent water,
barbecue and trash facili es, and, if possible, shade or developed shelters, located conveniently for local neighborhood and parking access.
•
Renovated tot lot: provide mul -age accessible areas located within clear view of ac ve
uses and parking.
•
Security: provide ligh ng and pay phone for primary use areas and parking lots.
The report indicates that La Mesa did not have a full-size baseball facility (400-foot foul lines)
located in a park where several different so ball and youth baseball leagues require this size facility. The study suggested that the proposed new field at La Mesita Park/Seau Center may meet this
deficiency, or if not, a joint-use full-size field should be developed. During 2000 to 2006, Phases I, II,
and III of the Junior Seau Sports Complex were completed to met this deficiency.
Public Opinion Survey
Every three years, the City of La Mesa completes a public opinion survey. This survey is sta s cally
accurate and helps guide the City and neighborhood development efforts, and priori zes the needs
of the City's residents. The last survey was completed in 2011 and included a Parks and Recrea on
sec on. Overall, 89.8% of respondents indicated that they would rate La Mesa's recrea onal and
cultural programs as excellent or good. The survey indicated the biggest recrea onal priority included safety and security ligh ng at parks, with 86% ra ng it as a high or medium priority. The second
priority was to upgrade or replace exis ng playground equipment at 80%, followed by upgrading
and expanding community and recrea onal centers with 66% of the respondents ra ng it as a high
or medium priority.
1.7.4 Ongoing Park Development Efforts
Capital Improvement Plans
There are several Capital Improvement Projects iden fied in the City of La Mesa that need to be
considered in this study. These include:
1-10
•
Projects addressing general improvements and upkeep of the parks are planned for fiscal
years 2012 and 2013 with funding iden fied, this includes replacing the ar ficial turf football field at Junior Seau Sports Complex.
•
La Mesita, Harry Griffen and Northmont Park are to receive new picnic pavilions.
•
New trail fitness equipment and outdoor fitness equipment will be installed at La Mesita
and Porter Park.
•
Northmont Park will receive new playground equipment.
•
New roofs will be installed on the restrooms at Sunshine Park and Harry Griffen Park.
•
ADA upgrades will occur at Sunshine Park.
•
Funding and a me frame for improvements to incorporate the dra Collier Park Master
Plan have not been iden fied.
•
Vista La Mesa park is currently being master planned to add new picnic areas and playgrounds.
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
In addi on to upcoming CIPs, several projects have been completed in recent years. These include:
•
Junior Seau Sports Complex Phases 1-3, 2000-2006
•
MacArthur Park Tot Lot, 2002
•
Highwood Park Tot Lot Replacement, 2003
•
Helix Charter High School Field #2 renova on, 2003
•
La Mesa Skate Park Construc on, 2003
•
Briercrest Park Construc on, 2005
•
Jackson Park Rest Room Replacement and Ligh ng Construc on, 2005
•
Teen Center Construc on at Highwood Park, 2006
•
Rolando Park Tot Lot, 2006
•
Porter Hall Renova ons and ADA Upgrades, 2007
•
La Mesa Skate Park Upgrades, 2008
•
Aztec Park Ligh ng Construc on, 2009
•
Jackson Park Tot Lot Replacement, 2010
•
La Mesita Park Tennis Court Resurfacing, 2011
It's Child's Play
It's Child's Play is a program to "create joyful playgrounds in La Mesa parks" and is funded by the La
Mesa Park and Recrea on Founda on. La Mesa Parks and Recrea on Founda on is a private nonprofit organiza on that was created in 1999. Its first major capital effort was to complete the fundraising for a master plan called The PARKS Project. Between 1999 and 2005, the Founda on and
the City together raised nearly $8 million to create a youth sports complex at the Parkway Middle
School and revamp Briercrest Park. The second project was to support a new Teen Center operated
by the Boys and Girls Club at Highwood Park. Since its incep on, the Founda on has a successful
track record in working collabora vely with the City and with other public and private en es. Now
the Founda on is embarking on this new ini a ve.
The goal is to raise $1 million to replace five playgrounds at Northmont, Vista La Mesa, Collier, La
Mesita, and Jackson Parks. All of the playgrounds slated for comple on are 25 years or older and do
not meet current Americans with Disabili es Act requirements, nor do they support ac ve or crea ve play for children. These new playgrounds will provide accessible, age appropriate, and s mula ng playgrounds that mirror the community desires for their neighborhood parks. The Jackson
Park playground opened in 2010.
1.8 Community Input Summary
There were several opportuni es for the community of La Mesa to par cipate in the development
of the Parks Master Plan. These included par cipa on in public workshops, field work, volunteer
efforts, comple ng a public survey, and input to City boards and commissions.
FEBRUARY 2012
1-11
CITY OF LA MESA
1.8.1 Public Workshop Input
A public workshop was held on July 30, 2011
at MacArthur Park. This workshop gave people
the opportunity to provide input on a variety
of topics rela ng to this project, as well as
updates to specific elements of the City of La
Mesa's General Plan. A endees were asked to
provide comments on a Dra Vision Statement
and Dra Suppor ng Goals and Objec ves for
the Parks Master Plan. They also par cipated in
several mapping ac vi es to iden fy opportunies and constraints within the exis ng parks,
and were asked to iden fy any opportuni es for
new parks to be developed throughout the City.
Residents from La Mesa and surrounding areas
were also invited to give input on parks at Kids
Care Fest on September 24, 2011. Public comments and community workshop boards can be
found by contac ng the City.
Workshop parƟcipants
1.8.2 Boards and Commission Input
The City of La Mesa has organized a number of special commissions and boards in order to get community input and review on a number of important community wide topics. The following boards
and commissions exist at the City of La Mesa and have an interest in the Citywide Parks Master
Plan. These commissions include:
1-12
•
Community Services Commission
•
Environmental Sustainability Commission
•
Historic Preserva on Commission
•
Planning Commission
•
Design Review Board
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
1.8.3 Community Volunteer Efforts (Field Work)
During the month of July 2011, a group
of La Mesa ci zens and college interns
from SDSU and UCSD were broken into
five groups to document the exis ng condi ons of the walkways and bike facili es
throughout the en re city. In addi on, a
sixth group visited every city park in La
Mesa and documented access points into
the parks, the number of people using
the parks, and all the facili es that were
located in the park. This field work was
u lized to document exis ng condi ons,
but it also provided a good star ng point
to analyze the park deficiencies and the
opportuni es to improve access and park
facili es.
In addi on to fieldwork, volunteers
helped compile and input data and issues
iden fied in the field. They also assisted
with compiling the results of the workshop.
Volunteer MeeƟngs
1.8.4 Questionnaire Summary
In addi on to the public workshop that was held at the end of July, ci zens were given the opportunity to provide their input through an on-line survey. Overall, Harry Griffen was the most frequently
used park in La Mesa, while several people frequently visit Balboa Park and Mission Bay to par cipate in recrea onal ac vi es. An overwhelming number of respondents to the survey indicated that
they most frequently used La Mesa's parks for walking and running. There were also a high percentage of people who u lized the parks for exercising and walking their dog, informal play, small group
picnics, and children's playgrounds. Many people iden fied improving walkway connec ons and
be er ligh ng as a way to improve access and safety. A large majority of people indicated they used
their cars to get to the parks they frequently visited. One of the main reasons individuals don't visit
the parks within the City was that they felt they were unsafe. The detailed results of the survey can
be found be found by contac ng the City.
FEBRUARY 2012
1-13
CITY OF LA MESA
1-14
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Chapter 2
2.0 Existing Planning and Policy Framework
For a city to a provide a park system that func ons smoothly and accommodates all its community
members, planning and policy efforts must be put into place, understood, and followed. Without
these efforts, gaps in facili es, programs and networks are likely to occur.
2.1 Existing Policies
The City of La Mesa maintains and follows several policies rela ng to open space, access to parks,
park and recrea onal opportuni es. These policies work to guide the future development of recrea on in La Mesa.
2.1.1 City of La Mesa General Plan
The City of La Mesa General Plan was originally adopted in 1965. As state laws and local needs
changed, it has undergone several revisions and addi onal elements have been added since it was
first adopted, which lead to the current adopted 1996 version. In order to address a variety of new
issues, including sustainability, climate change, water conserva on, storm water runoff requirements, and green building principles, the City has been revising the General Plan to address these
trends. The new 2012 document contains three different sec ons or elements that relate to and
guide the Parks Master Plan.
FEBRUARY 2012
2-1
CITY OF LA MESA
Circulation
The Circula on Element not only covers how people get around by car and public transit, but more
importantly as it relates to this plan, it addresses how the community gets around by foot and
bicycle.
Recreation and Open Space
The Recrea on and Open Space Element addresses the need to maintain open space and parks and
to provide recrea onal opportuni es for the City of La Mesa's ci zens.
Health and Wellness
The Health and Wellness Element is a new sec on in the updated General Plan and addresses walkabilty, access to healthy foods, and urban agriculture. It covers the link between public health and
community design.
Landuse and Urban Design
The Landuse and Urban Design Element iden fies goals and policies related to planning of the City.
Within this element, there are discussions of open space and recrea on.
2.1.2 Park in Lieu and Impact Fees
In order to generate funds for park improvements or to acquire land for parks, the City Council accepted and approved a municipal code ordinance to add two park development impact fees; 1). The
Park Acquisi on and Improvement Fee; and 2). The Parkland Dedica on In-Lieu Fee and Improvement Impact Fee. These impact fees are designed for single and mul -family residen al developments to mi gate the impact of new development on the municipality's exis ng facili es and infrastructure. Residen al development projects in a new subdivision are obligated to dedicate three
acres of undeveloped parkland per one thousand people. The fees developed were based on popula on and growth projec ons, facility standards, amount/cost of facili es required to accommodate
growth, and total cost of facili es per unit of development. By collec ng these fees, the goals and
priori es of the City's recrea onal space and facili es standards established in the general plan can
be met, and the recommenda ons of the La Mesa Parks and Open Space Needs Assessment, along
with the recommenda ons in this Master Plan, can be implemented.
On July 27, 2010, staff provided a status report on the Park In-Lieu and Impact Fees to Council. As
part of the 2011-2012 biennium budget process and the Capital Improvement Plan, staff asked for
support for the findings as required by California Government Code 66001 and approval for the suggested projects. The projects were selected based on the enhanced ameni es that would be added
to the park system, the loca on of the park in rela on to the development, and poten al parallel
enhancements to the park from other funding sources. The projects included:
2-2
•
Add a new walking path and outdoor fitness equipment at the Junior Seau Sports Complex/
La Mesita Park located in the northeast quadrant. $15,000 is allocated for this project.
•
Construct varied size shade structures/picnic pavilions at La Mesita, Northmont and Harry
Griffen Park. These parks are located in the northeast quadrant. $320,000 has been allocated for four shade structures.
•
Add older adult fitness equipment at the Adult Enrichment Center/Porter Park located in
the southeast quadrant. $15,000 in Park In-Lieu fees have been allocated for this project
and matched by an $8,000 grant.
•
Program remaining funds for City-wide park projects that surface during the City-wide Park
Master Plan process. $357,559 has been allocated for this project.
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
2.1.3 "ready...set...Live Well" Initiative
It is the City of La Mesa's policy to promote a healthy and well city. The City created the Health and
Wellness Program to improve the quality of life of its ci zens, address issues with obesity, especially
in children, and also provide a more walkable, bikeable city.
Ready...Set...Live Well is an ini a ve that extends and integrates efforts to support healthy ea ng and
physical ac vity in Spring Valley and La Mesa, focusing primarily on environmental change and policy
strategies. The ini a ve engages mul ple sectors -- schools, health care, business, and faith communi es -- to coordinate with residents and local government on ac ons that will create healthier community environments and reverse the troubling trends in obesity and chronic disease.
2.1.4 Crime Prevention and Operating Hours
Design, maintenance, and the enforcement of opera ng hours can help prevent crime in parks.
With the excep on of Harry Griffin Park, which is open from 7:00 a.m. to one hour a er sunset, La
Mesa parks are open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The City of La Mesa u lizes Crime Preven on
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts, as needed, to address issues with natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, and maintenance in City parks. Clearing sight lines
across parks, though ul placement of park features, and effec ve distribu on of ligh ng can help
encourage posi ve park use.
2.1.5 City Of La Mesa Water Conservation Ordinance
In response to Assembly Bill 1881 (Water Conserva on in Landscaping Act of 2006), the City of La
Mesa has adopted regula ons to conserve water used for landscaping. These regula ons apply to
a variety of industrial, commercial, ins tu onal, or mul -family residen al landscapes, and also
includes public agency projects that contain a landscaped area of 2,500 square feet of more. These
regula ons are based upon the statewide and county model ordinances. City of La Mesa Ordinance
2009-2805 provides an overview of the program, defines the terminology, and defines under what
condi ons these regula ons apply. The purpose of the ordinance is to:
•
Promote the values and benefits of landscapes while recognizing the need to u lize water
and other resources as efficiently as possible.
•
Establish a structure for planning, designing, installing, maintaining and managing water
efficient landscape in new construc on.
•
Promote the use, when available, of ter ary treated recycled water for irriga on and landscaping.
•
Use water efficiently without waste by se ng a Maximum Applied Water Allowance
(MAWA) as an upper limit for water use and reduce water use to the lowest prac cal
amount.
•
Encourage water users of exis ng landscaped to use water efficiently and without waste.
FEBRUARY 2012
2-3
CITY OF LA MESA
2.2 Park and Recreation Requirements
The City of La Mesa maintains 14 parks within the city in order to meet the recrea onal requirements of its community. Specific popula on based guidelines and requirements have been established to guide future park developments.
2.2.1 Park Classifications
There are several different ways to classify the types of parks found within a city and region. The
City of La Mesa's parks include facili es that can accommodate passive or ac ve recrea onal opportuni es. The park land area itself can be classified as a community, neighborhood, mini, or
pocket park. Other parks found outside the City, but u lized by its ci zens, can include regional and
resource-based parks.
Passive Park Definitions
Passive recrea on refers to recrea onal ac vi es that do not require facili es like sports fields or
pavilions. Examples of passive recrea on are: picnicking, walking, hiking, bird watching, social interac on, sunning, reading, and general nature observa on.
Active Park Definitions
Ac ve recrea on generally refers to a structured individual or team ac vity that requires the use of
special facili es, courses, fields, or equipment. Examples of ac ve sports recrea on are: baseball,
football, soccer, basketball, handball, golf, hockey, tennis, skiing, and skateboarding. Other informal
but ac ve recrea onal ac vi es can include jogging, running, ska ng, biking, swimming, diving, frisbee golf, and other non-scheduled pick up sports such as soccer, flag football, pitch and throw, kite
flying and other open field ac vi es that do not require regula on-sized specialized sports facili es.
Regional Park Definitions
Regional parks a ract visitors from throughout the region. These parks typically have dis nc ve
scenic, natural, historical, or cultural features that a ract users. Regional parks in San Diego include
Balboa Park, Mission Bay Park, Mission Trails Regional Park, and Sunset Cliffs Natural Park. Local
regional parks include Harry Griffen Park.
Community Park Definitions
These parks serve a larger popula on within a specific single community area or mul ple communi es. Community parks include both passive and ac ve recrea on facili es, but will also likely
contain recrea on or community centers, mul -purpose sports fields, and aqua c complexes. These
parks contain several acres and can include a variety of areas for car parking. These parks are typically over 15 acres. Community Parks include MacArthur Park.
2-4
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Neighborhood Park Definitions
Neighborhood parks serve a smaller popula on within an area, but s ll include both passive and
ac ve recrea on facili es. These parks include minimum areas for car parking, encouraging its
visitors to u lize alterna ve transporta on, such as biking or walking, to access the park. Neighborhood parks range in size from one to fi een acres. Neighborhood parks include: Aztec Park, Briercrest Park, Collier Park, Highwood Park, Porter Park, Jackson Park, La Mesita Park, Northmont Park,
Rolando Park, Sunset Park, Sunshine Park, and Vista La Mesa Park.
Linear Parks
Linear Parks are long, narrow strips of land that contain more passive ac vity nodes, but also funcon as a linear walking path or route. These routes can vary in length, but are typically 2-3 miles
maximum and can include thema c elements and distance markers to iden fy a route. Linear parks
can connect two important des na ons or provide several unique des na ons along a loop. They
include plan ng and trees, benches, and wide pedestrian paths.
Pocket Parks
Pocket parks do not include ac ve recrea onal ac vi es (except playgrounds and par-course type
equipment). They are less then one acre and typically include hardscape-type plazas, sea ng areas,
and walkways that support a variety of respite and social interac on opportuni es. They also include plan ng and small turf areas, and could contain small children's play areas. There is no onsite
parking except for disabled access. These parks are accessible by walking or biking. There are currently no designated pocket parks in La Mesa since this designa on is a recommenda on of this study.
Exis ng parks that are not currently counted in the exis ng condi ons, service area analysis or recrea on standards summary, may in the future include: Walkway of the Stars and the Train Depot.
FEBRUARY 2012
2-5
CITY OF LA MESA
2.2.2 Population Based Park Standards
The City of La Mesa encompasses nine square miles or about 5,760 acres with a current populaon of 57,650 people. The La Mesa General Plan indicates the overall ra o of parks should be one
neighborhood park (3-7 acres) for every 5,000 residents, and one community park (15-30 acres) for
every 20,000 residents. Based on this criteria, the requirements are listed below:
•
Recommended neighborhood parks based on current popula on= 11.53 parks
•
Neighborhood parks currently available= 12 parks
•
Recommended community parks based on current popula on= 2.88 Parks
•
Community parks currently available= 1 park
•
Regional parks currently available= 1 Park
These numbers indicate a shortage of city parks needed to support the current popula on. In addion to just suppor ng the popula on within the City of La Mesa, an uniden fied number of people
from neighboring communi es and ci es typically visit these parks.
Other popula on based standards include standards for facili es from the Na onal Recrea on and
Park Associa on (NRPA), which were adopted by the Office of Planning and Research for the State
of California as guidelines for developing a Parks and Recrea on Element of a General Plan. The
commonly accepted standard used by a majority of communi es are in acres of parkland per unit
of popula on. However, it is understood that these should only act as guidelines and local circumstances and preferences may dictate broadening or narrowing the scope. Refer to Table 2.1 for how
these standards would apply to La Mesa.
The standards in the Recrea on, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines document published by NRPA indicate 10 acres per 1,000 as a good ra o. Based on this criteria and the 2010 land
use data for the City of La Mesa, the requirements are listed below:
•
Exis ng Park / Open Space acres in La Mesa= 135.4 Acres of Park Land + 56 Acres of Public
Open Space = 191.4 Acres Total
•
Suggested Parks and Open Space Acreage based on current popula on= 576.5 Acres
In addi on to land area, the NRPA has established guidelines for recrea onal facili es and ac vi es.
These guidelines for the ac vi es currently established or desired in La Mesa are listed on Table 2.1.
A comparison of the NRPA guidelines to the exis ng condi ons was compiled in Table 2.2 to determine shortages in facili es.
2-6
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Table 2.1—Population Based Park Standards for Facilities and Activities
Ac vity / Facility
Number of Units per
Popula on
Service
Radius
Loca on Notes
Basketball
1 per 5,000
1/4 -1/2
mile
Usually in school, recrea on center, or church facili es. Safe walking or
bike access.
Tennis
1 court per 2,000
1/4 -1/2
mile
Best in ba eries of 2-4. Located in neighborhood / community parks
or adjacent to schools.
Baseball Official and Li le
League
1 per 5,000
1/4 -1/2
mile
Part of a neighborhood complex. Lighted fields are part of a community complex.
Football
1 per 20,000
15-30
minutes
travel
me
Usually part of a baseball, football, soccer complex in a community
park or adjacent to a high school.
Soccer
1 per 10,000
1-2 miles
Number of units depends on popularity. Youth soccer can be accommodated on smaller fields adjacent to schools or neighborhood parks.
1 per 50,000
30
minutes
travel
me
Part of a golf course complex. A separate unit may be privately owned.
1/4 Mile Running
Track
1 per 20,000
15-30
minutes
travel
me
Usually part of a high school or in a community park complex in combina on with football, soccer, etc.
So ball
1 per 5,000
1/4 -1/2
mile
May also be used for youth baseball.
Trails
1 per 10,000
1 system
per region
N/A
Golf- par 3, 18
hole
1 per 25,000
1/2 to
1 hour
travel
me
Course may be located in a community park, but should not be over 20
miles from the popula on center.
Swimming Pool
1 per 20,000 (pools
should accommodate
3-5% of the populaon at a me)
15-30
minutes
travel
me
Pools for general community should be programmed for teaching,
compe ve and recrea onal purposes with enough depth (3.4m) to
accommodate 1m and 3m diving boards. Located in a community park
or school site.
Golf-driving
Range
FEBRUARY 2012
2-7
CITY OF LA MESA
Table 2.2— Existing Park Facilities and Activities in La Mesa
Ac vity / Facility
Suggested Standard based on La
Mesa's current
popula on
Current public facili es in La Mesa
Current private facili es in La Mesa*
Current joint-use
facili es in La
Mesa**
Total current
public, private, and
joint-use facili es
in La Mesa
Basketball
12 Courts
3 Courts
1 Court
9 Courts
13 Courts
Tennis
29 Courts
9 Courts
-
2 Courts
11 Courts
Baseball Official and Li le
League
12 Fields
6 Field
-
17 Fields
23 Fields
Football
3 Fields
2 Fields
-
1 Field
3 Field
Soccer
6 Fields
2 Field
2 Fields
1 Fields
5 Fields
Golf-driving Range
1 Range
1 Range
-
-
1 Range
1/4 Mile Running
Track
3 Tracks
-
-
1 Track
1 Track
So ball
12 Fields
1 Fields
-
2 Fields
3 Fields
Trails
6 Systems
3 Systems
-
-
3 System
Golf- par 3, 18 hole
3 Courses
1 course locally,
several other
courses within a 20
mile radius
-
-
1 course locally,
several other
courses within a 20
mile radius
Swimming Pool
3 Pools
1 Pool
2 Pools
-
3 Pools
*Includes Kroc Center, John A. Davis YMCA, Church of Jesus Christ of La er Day Saints, and Indoor
Soccer Center
**Includes Junior Seau Sports Complex, The Club, and Current Joint Use Agreements with the La
Mesa-Spring Valley School District and Grossmont Union High School District
2.2.3 Existing Programs to Encourage Active Healthy Living
La Mesa Community Services offers a wide range of programs, as well as informa onal services, to
people of all ages within the community. The programs are one of the reasons residents enjoy living
in La Mesa. The department's instruc onal classes range from dance, gymnas cs, arts, and swimming, to leisure ac vi es such as crea ve wri ng and financial planning. Special events include:
the La Mesa Flag Day Parade, “Sundays at Six” summer concert series, Transporta on and Mobility
Expo, Intergenera onal Games, Park Apprecia on Day, and other seasonal ac vi es. Scholarship
programs are offered for eligible residents and include GOLF-“Good Old La Mesa Fun” golf clinics.
The Community Services Department is responsible for the rentals of the Community Center, Nan
Couts Co age, Adult Enrichment Center, and Municipal Pool.
The department has ten full me staff (one of which is a grant funded limited term employee), a
large cadre of part me seasonal instructors, and a large team of volunteers. The department has
three commissions under its purview: the Community Services Commission, the Youth Advisory
Commission, and the Commission on Aging. The Department operates under a City Council ins tuted policy of an overall cost recovery objec ve of 60% for all of the department revenue ac vi es.
2-8
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Some of the department's current projects include support to the ready… set… Live Well Community Wellness Ini a ve, crea ng opportuni es to expand suggested walking routes to schools through
a Safe Routes to School grant, expanding the Rides 4 Neighbors program to provide transporta on
to older adults and people with disabili es, and crea ng a master plan for Collier Park. The department aggressively pursues grants for park expansion, upgrades, and program enhancements.
The La Mesa Community Services Department provides staff support to the La Mesa Park and Recrea on Founda on. In the last eight years, the Founda on has raised $2 million in private dollars
which was leveraged for over $7 million in public grants for new park projects. First was the Junior
Seau Sports Complex at Parkway Middle School, then the Teen Center at Highwood Park, and now
It’s Child’s Play – a playground renova on project in 5 community parks.
The Founda on also provides a con nuing opportunity to expand programming without impacting the City’s budget by ac ng as the fiscal conduit for dona ons and grant funding that are only
available to designated non-profit organiza ons. Some of the programs offered by the Founda on
include support to Project KAST (Kids and Seniors Together), Sundays at Six summer concerts and
Kids Care Fest. The Founda on also is the fiscal agent for the La Mesa Arts Alliance, a volunteer
group dedicated to crea ng and suppor ng arts in La Mesa.
Within the department, there are several divisions of services to the community, including Aqua cs,
Classes and Instruc onal Services, Facili es, Human Services, and Sports.
Aquatics Division
The Aqua cs Division provides programming and services at the La Mesa Municipal Pool, located in
MacArthur Park. Learn-to-swim and water safety instruc on is provided for ages 6 months through
senior adults. Recrea onal lap swimming, water exercise, and open public swimming programs are
offered throughout the year with expanded hours during the peak summer months. Special programs include Stroke Clinics, Adapted Aqua cs, and Special Olympics Swim Team. The Municipal
Pool is also available to rent for private par es and group events.
Classes and Instructional Services
Classes and Instruc onal Services is primarily responsible for providing instruc onal programs and
seasonal and special events for youth and families. The division provides more than 100 different
weekly classes in three sessions each year. These classes include dance, gymnas cs, karate, and
morning out pre-school, cooking, cheerleading and sports classes. Specialty camps are offered
during summer months in topics such as science, theater, tennis, dance, ice-ska ng, and gymnascs. The department contracts out most of its classes to ensure that they are offering the latest in
community interest. This division has been instrumental in establishing and opera ng the Project
KAST program at a local elementary school. K.A.S.T. is an inter-genera onal program pairing senior
volunteers with selected children in an a er-school program designed to provide mentoring and
support to students who may be at risk.
Facilities Division
The Facili es Division has primary responsibility for issuing contracts and permits for rental use of
the department's banquet facili es and ac vi es within City parks. The La Mesa Community Center
Arbor View Room is a popular site for weddings and birthday par es. The rentals provide important
cost recovery for the City’s opera ons. Several of the City’s parks, including Harry Griffen Park and
La Mesita Park, are available for outdoor events such as weddings, birthday par es, and memorial
services.
FEBRUARY 2012
2-9
CITY OF LA MESA
Human Services Division
The Human Services Division has the primary responsibility to oversee programming at the La Mesa
Adult Enrichment Center. These programs include instruc onal classes such as pain ng, yoga, tai
chi, bridge, crea ve wri ng, jewelry making, ceramics, dance, and aerobics. Social ac vi es include
Friday night dances, movie ma nees, chess club, bridge, and pinochle. Wellness ac vi es targe ng
the senior popula on include various health screenings throughout the year, exercise, fitness and
nutri on classes, and a daily hot luncheon program. Services offered throughout the year include
health insurance counseling, tax prepara on assistance, social services, and legal assistance referral.
Many seasonal and special events are held each year, including a Holiday Open House and informaonal forums and presenta ons on issues of interest to the senior popula on.
The Human Services Division also has oversight responsibili es for the City-wide Community Parcipa on Program that provides volunteers in a variety of posi ons and roles throughout the City.
Oversight includes recruitment, screening, tracking, and evalua ng individuals placed in all departments within the City. These volunteers enhance City services and, in some instances, provide addi onal services that would not otherwise be available to the community. This program has added
value to City services in excess of $6 million since its incep on. In December 2007, the division
launched the new Rides 4 Neighbors program as noted above.
Sports Division
The Sports Division is responsible for scheduling the use of athle c fields located within City parks
and on some school facili es through a Community Recrea on Agreements with the La MesaSpring Valley School District. This division provides staff support to the La Mesa Athle c Council.
Art Walk
This two-mile walk highlights art throughout the downtown village and is a partnership between
the La Mesa Art Alliance (LMAA) and the community. This walk includes elements such as u lity
boxes that have been transformed by local ar sts.
Walk La Mesa
As part of the Live Well ini a ve, a current list of organized walks is made available by the City
highligh ng walks throughout La Mesa. These walks are for all ages and abili es with the goal of
suppor ng a fit lifestyle.
Urban Walking Trails
There are three different walking trails for different abili es. The "Stride" is an intermediate level
five-mile route with slight hills which begins at Jackson Park. The "Challenge" begins at Highwood
Park and is an advanced level, three and a half mile route with hills and steps. The "Stroll" is a flat,
one-mile beginner route and starts at the La Mesa Railroad Depot. Each route is marked with color
coded direc onal markers for the community so that anyone can walk any me. These trails are
shown in Figure 2.1.
2-10
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
R
C
BA L
PA RKWAY D R
AL V AR ADO RD
TI
G
PARKS AV
AV
T
EA S
SE
VE
R
IN DR
ON A V
LEMON
AV
1.59 mile
loop
EUCALYPTUS COUNTY PARK
Valle De Oro
ECHO DR
ST
R
HIGHWOOD PARK
LE M
T
N
IE
OR
G RO S SMO N T B L
COLLIER PARK
AV
N
RI
SP
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
R
PORTER PARK
BL
SA
E
AM
V
MA
AL
RM
O
N
ROLANDO PARK
MU
D
T
L
PA
TY
SI
R
E
IV
UN
SUNSHINE PARK
N
El Cajon
BRIERCREST PARK
DR
Y
A
RO FT DR
MACARTHUR PARK
L
AV
KSO
PY
S
EN
GL
COLONY RD
S
TER
N
E
C
R
ED
OR
M
L
E L CA J ON B
HOFFMAN AV
F
AZTEC PARK
R
HE
YA D R
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
R IDG E
VISTA LA MESA PARK
RD
MU
TC
LE
AM A
ST
DR
H I GH S
T
DE
XT
E
KE
BL
R AY
JA
LA
SUNSET PARK
GR
E G OR
Y
BA
NC
MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
D
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
RR
JACKSON PARK
H
R
ST
San Diego
T
RI LLO A V
AMA
COWL E S
E L PA S O S
UT
SO
DALLAS ST
N
ER
GL EN
MT
N
BL
Figure 2.1—Existing Urban Walking Trails
WAITE DR
Legend
LaSpring
MesaValley
Boundary
Lemon Grove
City Parks
Walking Routes
The Challenge: Advanced Route
The Stride: Intermediate Route
The Stroll: Beginner Route
0 1,0002,000
4,000 Feet
FEBRUARY 2012
Art Walk
2-11
CITY OF LA MESA
2.2.4 Privately Provided
Recreation Programs
There are several privately owned recrea onal programs within the City of La
Mesa. Not all these facili es and opportuni es are available to the general
public to u lize because of fees associated with usage. However, these are
considered supplemental assets to the
City's recrea onal programs.
Salvation Army Kroc Center
The Salva on Army Kroc Center opened
to the public on June 19, 2002 and is located in the Rolando community at 6845
University Avenue adjacent to the City
of La Mesa. This facility is 12.4 acres and
serves the ci es of La Mesa and Lemon
Grove, but is also u lized by a variety of
residents in southeast San Diego County.
The facility includes opportuni es in art,
athle cs, personal development, spiritual discovery, and community service.
There is an aqua c facility containing
three pools, sports clubs, a fitness center,
an NHL regula on-sized ice rink, a rock
climbing wall, basketball courts, and an
indoor skate park.
East County Family YMCA (John A.
Davis Family YMCA)
The Pool and Ice Arena at Kroc Center
The East County Family YMCA is located
at 8881 Dallas Street in La Mesa and provides a variety of fitness programs and
facili es. The YMCA is located within La
Mesita Park.
Boys and Girls Club
The Boys and Girls Club is located in Highwood Park. Also called "The Club," this
facility provides various ac vi es to teens
throughout La Mesa.
Indoor Soccer Center
The John A. Davis Family YMCA
This indoor soccer center is located at
Murray Drive in La Mesa and a single
indoor field is available for recrea onal play. This field supports various leagues.
2-12
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Businesses Offering Fitness Services
Opportuni es for physical fitness in the City are also provided by the business community. Each
year, the City reviews business license applica ons for a variety of fitness-related businesses.
These include full service gyms, such as 24-Hour Fitness, smaller bou que gyms, such as Curves for
Women, and businesses offering body condi oning classes, such as dance, yoga, pilates, mar al
arts, and boxing.
Table 2.3—Businesses Offering Fitness Services
Business Name
Address
Number
Street
24 Hour Fitness #101
7450
University Avenue
24 Hour Fitness #178
5601
Grossmont Center Drive
White Dragon Mar al Arts Schools
7127
University Avenue
Bunny's School of Ballet
8062
La Mesa Boulevard
LeBlanc's Taekwondo & Kickboxing
8217
La Mesa Boulevard
BKS Iyengar Yoga Center
8285
La Mesa Boulevard
Jeri Kish School of Ballet
8241
La Mesa Boulevard
A Gentle Way
8274
Parkway Drive
Curves for Women
8677
La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa Indoor Soccer
9586
Murray Drive
Heart & Soul Yoga & Healing Arts Center
8558
La Mesa Boulevard
The Center for Crea ve & Playful Acts
8241
La Mesa Boulevard
Pilates Mind and Body
8881
Fletcher Parkway
The Element Dance Center
5919
Severin Drive
East County Family Mar al Arts
5288
Bal more Drive
Bend Fitness
5264
Bal more Drive
McKenna's Mar al Arts and Fitness
8314
Parkway Drive
Lake Murray Fitness
5611
Lake Murray Boulevard
Village Gym
8227
La Mesa Boulevard
Jiu Jitsu Founda on
8674
La Mesa Boulevard
San Diego Sports
7200
Parkway Drive
B Fit La Mesa
5500
Grossmont Center Drive
Cital Boxing and Nutri on
7323
El Cajon Boulevard
Source: HDL Query for 050 (Health Spa/Fitness); 064 (Recrea on-Instructor/Training); and 083 (Recrea onal). Does not include recrea on contractors that hold classes at the Community Center or
business located in public parks, such as the Challenge Center and Sun Valley Golf Course.
FEBRUARY 2012
2-13
CITY OF LA MESA
Private Recreational Amenities serving Residential Communities
Private recrea on ameni es serving residen al communi es supplement the public park system.
The City’s Municipal Code requires that recrea on and leisure open space be provided within each
residen al development. The code states that common open space may include game courts or
rooms, play lots, pu ng greens, roof gardens, sun decks, swimming pools, and similar areas that
serve all residents of the development. The requirement for recrea onal space is not to be construed to prescribe any specific type of recrea on, but rather may be for any kind of recrea onal
use, whether it is passive or ac ve. To sa sfy code requirements, single family developments
provide private yard areas to serve each home site. In addi on, Planned Residen al Developments
(PRDs) are single family developments that feature common recrea onal or open space ameni es.
The ameni es may vary from lawn areas, to tot lots, to hillsides with natural vegeta on. Mul -family developments, such as condominium or apartments complexes, also provide common recrea onal ameni es, such as a swimming pool, clubhouse or private gym.
Private Open Space
Private open space includes canyon lands south of I-8 and a larger open space area within the City’s
Eastridge neighborhood located to the north of SR-94. These areas are designated for Open Space
use in the City’s General Plan. In these areas, development will be restricted and open space will be
managed in accordance with Council policies and the City’s Habitat Conserva on Plan and Implemen ng Agreement with State and Federal wildlife agencies.
2-14
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Chapter 3
3.0 Inventory and Existing Conditions
An inventory of the exis ng park assets and exis ng condi ons, along with access to parks, was
completed through fieldwork by volunteers and the design team. These condi ons were documented and analyzed against exis ng policies to find deficiencies and surpluses.
3.1 Existing Park Profiles
The City of La Mesa maintains a total of 14 public parks that provide for a variety of recrea onal
opportuni es. These parks are distributed throughout the City and all fall into one of four different
quadrants of the City, as shown in Figure 3.1. These quadrants are defined by major vehicular corridors that act as barriers and include the Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast. These
quadrants are used to determine the equitable distribu on of community parks and special facilies. Access to these community level parks may or may not be by foot, and a 15-minute walk me
is not a criteria for their distribu on.
FEBRUARY 2012
3-1
CITY OF LA MESA
Figure 3.1—City Quadrants
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
HIGHWOOD PARK
VISTA LA MESA PARK
·
City Quadrant
Northeast
Northwest
Southwest
Southeast
This map shows the distribu on of City parks and quadrant boundaries. The City uses this quadrant
map for community surveying purposes as a way to ensure that all resident input is gathered. La
Mesa parks are distributed fairly well throughout the City with the excep on of the northeastern
part of the southwest quadrant.
3-2
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The 14 individual parks of La Mesa total almost 136 acres. Each of these park's service areas, based
on a 15-minute walk me within the road network, were analyzed, and an inventory of all facili es
within the individual parks was completed. Facili es are also summarized in the following table by
quadrant (see Table 3.1 and Table 3.2).
Table 3.1—Existing Public Facilities Summary by Quadrant
Northwest
Northeast
Southwest
Southeast
Group Picnic Areas
Y
Y
Y
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Y
Y
Y
Benches
Y
Y
Y
Y
Barbecues
Y
Y
Y
Y
Tot Lots (2-5 years old)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Children's Playgrounds (5-12 years old)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Pool Facili es / Splash Pads
-
-
-
Y
Walking/Running Trails
Y
Y
Y
-
Parcourses
-
Y
-
Y
Off-leash Dog Areas
-
Y
-
-
Tennis Courts
-
Y
-
Y
Basketball
Y
-
-
Y
Soccer Field / Football
-
Y
-
-
Baseball/So ball
Y
Y
Y
Y
Skate Parks
-
Y
-
-
Horseshoes
-
Y
Y
Y
Golf
-
-
-
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Y
Y
Y
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
Y
Y
Y
On-site Parking
Y
Y
Y
Y
Restrooms
Y
Y
Y
Y
Amphitheaters
-
Y
-
-
FEBRUARY 2012
3-3
CITY OF LA MESA
Table 3.2—Existing Public and Private* Facilities Summary by Quadrant
Northwest
Northeast
Southwest
Southeast
Group Picnic Area
Y
Y
Y
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Y
Y
Y
Benches
Y
Y
Y
Y
Barbecues
Y
Y
Y
Y
Tot Lots (2-5 years old)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Children's Playgrounds (5-12 years old)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Pool Facili es / Splash Pads
-
Y
Y
Y
Walking/Running Trails
Y
Y
Y
-
Parcourses
-
Y
-
Y
Off-leash Dog Areas
-
Y
-
-
Tennis Courts
-
Y
-
Y
Basketball
Y
-
Y
Y
Soccer Field / Football
-
Y
Y
-
Baseball/So ball
Y
Y
Y
Y
Skate Parks or Plazas
-
Y
Y
-
Horseshoes
-
Y
Y
Y
Golf
-
-
-
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Y
Y
Y
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
Y
Y
Y
On-site Parking
Y
Y
Y
Y
Restrooms
Y
Y
Y
Y
Amphitheaters
-
Y
-
-
*Includes Kroc Center, John A. Davis YMCA, Church of Jesus Christ of La er Day Saints, and Indoor
Soccer Center
3-4
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The maps in this chapter and in Figure 3.3 delineate the exis ng service area. The exis ng service
areas begin at the park and u lize the exis ng sidewalks, or road networks in neighborhoods where
there or no future sidewalks proposed, and moves out a distance which equates to a 15-minute
walk me. The exis ng sidewalk network is shown in purple, and neighborhoods that u lize the
road as a pedestrian connec on are shown in red.
Figure 3.2— Existing Network
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Valle De Oro
Legend
HIGHWOOD PARK
Existing Pedestiran Network
Existing Sidewalk
·
No Sidewalks Proposed (Road Network Utilized)
VISTA LA MESA PARK
City Parks
2010 Residential Land Use
Spring Valley
Non-Residential Land Use
Lemon Grove
FEBRUARY 2012
3-5
CITY OF LA MESA
Where there are gaps in the sidewalk, the network is assumed to be broken and does not provide
universal access. These gaps limit pedestrian access. Using the exis ng sidewalks, or the road in
neighborhoods where there are no planned sidewalks, and a 15-minute walk me, a person can
walk the distances indicated in green. This is the exis ng service and reflects any exis ng gaps in the
network, as shown Figure 3.3. The service areas was evaluated in the same way for individual parks
and can be seen in the following maps describing each park.
Figure 3.3—Existing Conditions Composite Park Service Area
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Valle De Oro
HIGHWOOD PARK
Legend
·
City Parks
2010 Residential Land Use within 15 min Walk Time
VISTA LA MESA PARK
Non-Residential Land Use within 15 Min Walk Time
Spring Valley
Lemon Grove
3-6
2010 Residential Land Use Outside 15 min Walk Time
Non-Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.1.1 Northwest Quadrant
The Northwest Quadrant includes Aztec Park, Jackson Park, and Sunset
Park.
Aztec Park
Aztec Park consists of large, mature shade trees with large expanses of
rolling turf areas for informal play. There are also group and individual
picnic areas throughout, a restroom building, and children's playground.
On-site parking is not available, but parking is available along the adjacent street.
Table 3.3—Existing Facilities- Aztec Park
Group Picnic Area
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
Y
Barbecue
Y
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Y
7945 Morocco Drive
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
La Mesa, CA 91942
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Corner of Aztec Drive & Morocco Drive
Walking/Running Trails
-
Type of Park:
Parcourse
-
Neighborhood Park
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Acres and Parking:
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
On-site Parking
-
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
3.96 acres
Street parking only
FEBRUARY 2012
3-7
CITY OF LA MESA
Figure 3.4—Existing Park Service Area- Aztec Park
Stadle
r St
Lesa Rd
Ch
az
W
Pl
hi
te
he
ad
Pl
Av
Te
x
St
Je
an
et
te
Bruno Pl
Aztec Dr
y
sl e
l le
We
ck
Bu
Ch
S
nd
la
rk
Pa
ge Dr
St On
a
cett
Vin
Dr
St
Wheaton St
Tufts St
t
e St
Wak
Maryland Av
i St
Ch
r
Rab St
St
D
Jac kson
t
Morro Wy
Pl
Kato St
v
Morocco Dr
AZTEC PARK
idi
He
iS
A
go
Soper Ln
Shas ta Ln
land Rd
ren
Ma
Collin
s Av
hn
St Jo
Ta u St
Anders Cr
St
Zeta
l
Iota P
Dr
l
nd
We
ke
La
yB
rra
Mu
S
Sigma
Pa
wn
ee
Carlette St
Bl
Dr
SUNSET PARK
n Av
Duga
tn
k Wy
Lak e Par
n Av
Laird St
M
Derk
r
Co
wl
es
JACKSON PARK
Binney Pl
Kelto
re D
ON TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
d Ln
t
pa S
Kap
o
ti m
Bal
Ta nglero
Seton Hall St
eD
Center Dr
D
Tio
t
Por
gS
rin
Sp
B
ajon
El C
l
MACARTHUR PARK
Pine St
t
Thorne Dr
He
Center St
Av
Saranac Av
Case St
Commercial St
r
va
ua
G
Colony Dr
Keeney St
Industrial Ln
Alvarado Rd
h
anc
Com
Mohawk St
Py
t
Dr
way
Pa rk
S
ken
Tim
er
tch
Fle
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-8
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Jackson Park
Jackson Park is made up of large lawn areas with mature shade trees. It
is situated on land owned by the La Mesa-Spring Valley School District
and is operated by the City as a public park. It is the star ng point for the
Stride Urban Walking Trail, which is an intermediate level, five-mile walk.
The park's playground was recently renovated by the La Mesa Park and
Recrea on Founda on. On-site parking is available, as well as a restroom
facility, and individual and group picnicking.
Table 3.4—Existing Facilities- Jackson Park
Group Picnic Area
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
-
Barbecue
-
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Y
5870 Jackson Drive
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
La Mesa, CA 91942
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Type of Park:
Walking/Running Trails
y
Neighborhood Park
Parcourse
-
Acres and Parking:
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
On-site Parking
y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
3.68 acres
Parking for 21 cars
FEBRUARY 2012
3-9
CITY OF LA MESA
ne
Abile
Ct
Ropalt St
Torrem St
Highga te Ln
d
Ta nglero
Stadle
r St
Midland St
Ln
Ch
az
W
Pl
hi
te
he
ad
Pl
Av
St
Te
x
Je
an
et
te
Bruno Pl
y
sl e
l le
We
Aztec Dr
v
il lo A
Ama r
da Ln
Lamb
Ta u St
t
e Av
Chlo
t
S
nd
la
y
k
Dr r P
c
Bu
ay che
w
rk let
Pa F
l
Iota P
r
e St
Wak
Rab St
St
v
Morro Wy
i St
Ch
S
Sigma
Kato St
D
Jac kson
t
A
go
Morocco Dr
St
Seton Hall St
idi
He
iS
ren
Ma
Soper Ln
AZTEC PARK
l
hn P
St Jo
nd
We
Anders Cr
St
Zeta
ire Av
Yorks h
Wy
Delta S
Dr
n Av
Duga
Carlette St
k
Lak e Par
Elden
t
yS
Cla
r
Derk
re D
Laird St
t
pa S
Kap
JACKSON PARK
Binney Pl
San Angelo Av
Tr
Nage l St
Av
Pat St
St
el
mu
a
S
Sa rita S
t
Nentra St
Rainey St
Odessa Av
Denton St
Kel
ton
Manon St
Zora St
Dalhart Av
l
ur
ra
yB
M
Dr
rra
Av
en
o
Co
wl e
s
Mt
nB
l
Tw
Dallas St
l
Noraak
Dr
Blue Lake Dr
P
ain
Bl
Alida St
Bob St
ON TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
ro
El Paso St
La
ke
Michelle Dr
in
St
Kimberly Dr
La
ke
Dr
Blue Lake Dr
Continue
Figure 3.5—Existing Park Service Area- Jackson Park
or
an
l lm
e
M
Dr
r
nte
Ce
Dr
ge Dr
St On
aD
cett
Vin
D
ay
kw
Pa r
r
r
Murray D
r
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-10
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Sunset Park
Sunset Park is an older facility with several recrea onal opportuni es. It
is adjacent to Lake Murray, but lacks a formal connec on. Historically, the
site served as the San Diego Chargers training facility, but today has two
ball fields, a playground, and a basketball court. It is also the site of the
Challenge Center, which helps to improve health, func on and quality of
life for those living with severe physical disability. This building is owned
by the City of La Mesa and leased to the Challenge Center on a year-toyear basis.
Table 3.5—Existing Facilities- Sunset Park
Group Picnic Area
-
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
-
Barbecue
-
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
-
5540 Lake Park Way
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
La Mesa, CA 91942
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Type of Park:
Walking/Running Trails
-
Parcourse
-
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
Y
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
Y
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
On-site Parking
y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
Neighborhood Park
Acres and Parking:
6.69 acres
Parking for 50 cars
FEBRUARY 2012
3-11
CITY OF LA MESA
Figure 3.6—Existing Park Service Area- Sunset Park
Torrem St
o
ti m
Bal
re D
Manon St
Zora St
Avenorra
Dr
Cowles Mtn Bl
o
Ct
Be
rtr
Noraak
Dr
MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
Bob St
o St
El Pa s
Rainey St
el
mu
Sa
Pat St
Highga te Ln
d Ln
Ta nglero
Binn
r
Laird
Carlette
Bruno Pl
Lesa Rd
Tufts St
Kiowa Dr
Seton Hall St
Baldrich St
tch
Fle
Magruder St
Grable St
Guessman Av
St
70
th
Av
Mary Fellows Av
Macquarie St
Wi
sc
on
sin
Mo
AZTEC PARK
Aztec Dr
Av
Oakland Rd
Melody Ln
Morocco Dr
St
Arizona Av
Ohio Av
Soper Ln
y
sl e
l le
We
Rd
Av
ra do
Bl
Wheaton St
Av
do
y
Lake M urra
Or
eg
on
t
ic u
e ct
nn
Co
Colo
Av
Anders Cr
Shas ta Ln
ing
Wyom
Dr
Collin
s Av
Maryland Av
Av
Pa
wn
ee
Ma
re
wa
Kiowa Dr
SUNSET PARK
Wy
Je
an
k
Lak e Par
Dr
way
Pa rk
rado
Alva
Rd
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-12
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.1.2 Northeast Quadrant
The Northeast Quadrant includes Briercrest Park, Harry Griffen Park, La
Mesita Park, and Northmont Park.
Briercrest Park
Briercrest is a sensory park where guests can enjoy peaceful gardens and
walkways. This park was redeveloped to provide seniors and the physically challenged a variety of opportuni es to explore and enjoy outdoor
recrea on and fitness. It includes rolling hills, an herb garden, and nontradi onal children's play equipment. Restrooms, benches, and individual and group picnic are
Table 3.6—Existing Facilities- Briercrest Park
also available throughout
the site. Parking is shared
Y
Group Picnic Area
with the adjacent Grossmont Health Care Center.
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
On-street parking is also
Y
available.
Benches
Barbecue
-
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Y
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Walking/Running Trails
-
Parcourse
-
Off-leash Dog Area
-
3.0 acres
Tennis Courts
-
Street and shared parking
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
On-site Parking
y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
9001 Wakarusa Street
La Mesa, CA 91941
Type of Park:
Neighborhood Park
Acres and Parking:
FEBRUARY 2012
3-13
CITY OF LA MESA
Elden St
Ea rl S
t
ll Dr
Delta St
Campina Dr
Dr
Dr
Br
ier
c
res
tD
Dr
Hilmer
Dr
C
Mo
no
na
in
Se ver
BRIERCREST PARK
rD
te
en
ya D
r
Urban
Ze
ta
Ama
t
ya C
Brie r Rd
t
l
Iota P
S
Sigma
v
il lo A
Ama r
da Ln
Lamb
Ta u St
ire Av
Yorks h
St
Dr
e Av
Chlo
St
d
an
l
Dr
ck
ay Py
Bu
w
rk her
Pa etc
Fl
Ama
Howe
Van Horn St
t
yS
Cla
Derk
t
pa S
Kap
i St
Ch
or
an
ll m
Me
NORTHMONT PARK
Alvarado Av
Av
Kel
ton
El Paso St
LA MESITA PARK
Cleburn Dr
Lubbock Av
t
Midland St
ne
Abile
Ode ssa
Av
Tr
Nage l St S
a rit
aS
Figure 3.7—Existing Park Service Area- Briercrest Park
Dr
La Suvid
a
r
r
Murray D
r
Gro
ss
mo
nt
Cen
te r
D
r
Fuerte
Av
Ct
r
Harmony Ln
D
Dailey Ct
Wilson St
M
es
a
Bl
La
Mes
a
lto
n Dr
Av
A
Dillo
ta
Mes a Vis
Ln
Glen St
Grossmont Bl
da r
Ce
Hayes St
Ln
r
Hill T
r
Marlen Wy
RTHUR PARK
Porte
r
Randlett Dr
t
Wood St
t
Pl
Tio Diego
Love
ll
D
ft
ro
nc
Ba
S
ken
Tim
S
l es
rcu
He
Dr
Alto
Jac ks
on
Sie rra V
Dr
to
ni
ra
G
El
W
is
te
r
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-14
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Harry Griffen Park
Harry Griffen Park is operated as part of a Joint Powers Authority composed of the Helix Water District, Grossmont Union High School District, the County of San Diego, and the ci es of El Cajon and La Mesa. It
includes a large amphitheater that is u lized for special events. A large
informal grass area sits on top of an underground reservoir and is currently being u lized for free play. An off-leash dog run is located in the
park and used frequently, as are the extensive walking and hiking trails.
Individual and group picnicking, on-site parking, a restroom facility, and
children's play structure can also be found within the park. This park is
scheduled to receive
a new picnic pavilTable 3.7—Existing Facilities- Harry Griffin Park
ion and roof on the
restroom through CIP
Y
Group Picnic Area
funds.
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
Y
Barbecue
Y
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Y
9550 Milden Street
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
La Mesa, CA 91942
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Adjacent to Grossmont High School
Walking/Running Trails
Y
Parcourse
-
Regional Park
Off-leash Dog Area
Y
Acres and Parking:
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
Y
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
Y
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
Y
On-site Parking
y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
Y
Address:
Type of Park:
53 acres
Parking for 181 cars
FEBRUARY 2012
3-15
CITY OF LA MESA
He
nd
er
so
Br
n
oa
Dr
dm
oo
rD
r
Jan Dr
Annett
m
Le
on
St
dt
ste
nn
De
El
jon
Ca
Bl
St
S
is
t
Dr
Midway Dr
Bl
ajo
n
Lore n Dr
Dr
W
at
er
c le
Cir
Banc roft
S Tra velodge
Pl
Dr
La Suvid
a Dr
r
e Wy
W
t
in
Se ver
Hilmer
Av
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
Wy
Dr
Wy
orne Ct
El
C
Dr
Mo
no
na
Black th
nS
lde
Mi
Urban
Brie r Rd
m
ko
No
res
tD
Dr
Jo
el
Ln
La
Vis
ta
Lak ev
iew D
r
Janfre
d
CREST PARK
Hihil l W
y
St
Po
pp
y
Dr
Ho
we
ll
Na
nc
y
Dr
Rd
Campina Dr
Br
ier
c
Primrose Dr
Dr
Falmo
uth
Dixie Dr
ya D
r
Murray Dr
Ama
Hill
si d
e
Av
t
ya C
e
orn
Pl
Ea rl S
t
Je
ric
ho
r
ck th
Bla
W
hi
te
NORTHMONT PARK
So
La
Murray Dr
Av
rne
Veemac Av
r
r
Sinjon Cr
Ama
Av
ay
D
Oa k
Liv e
Gre gory St
rr
Mu
tho
Haw
D
ley
Fletcher Py
Dr
n
o
Sisson St
t
r
Ho
r
n
Sta
nor D
W Ma
St
Sudy
D
Fernwood
Manor Dr
Dallas St
S Wes twind Dr
WM
ai n S
t
Figure 3.8—Existing Park Service Area- Harry Griffin Park
Grossmont Summit Dr
Dr
Gros
s mo
nt B
Shadow Rd
l
Sierra Vista Av
W
is
te
r
Dr
Fu
er
te D
ora
Pa nd
Dr
r
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-16
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.1.2.3 La Mesita Park
La Mesita Park houses the John A. Davis YMCA and is adjacent to the Junior Seau
Sports Complex. It includes open space for informal play, large shade trees, and
play equipment. There is a concrete track that is u lized by young children to ride
tricycles and scooters. This park also includes recently renovated tennis courts,
and a skate park for skateboarders and in-line ska ng. The Junior Seau Complex
includes full-sized lighted ball fields and football/soccer fields. The fields are only
available by permit. The park's playground has been targeted to receive renovaons by the La Mesa Park and Recrea on Founda on, and new picnic pavilions
with CIP funds. In addi on, new trail fitness equipment will be installed with CIP
funds. The YMCA is in a 25-year
lease agreement with the City of
Table 3.8—Existing Facilities- La Mesita Park
La Mesa, which began in 2004.
This lease is for the property and
Y
Group Picnic Area
improvements on and to the
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
property within the park, including parking with an agreement to
Y
complete Phase I and an op on to complete Phase II and III. The three Benches
phases have been completed except for an addi onal pool, which was
Y
Barbecue
op onal within Phase III and based on community needs.
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Y
8855 Dallas Street / 9009 Park Plaza Drive
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
La Mesa, CA 91942
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Type of Park:
Walking/Running Trails
Y
Neighborhood Park
Parcourse
-
Acres and Parking:
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Tennis Courts
Y
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
Y
Baseball/So ball
Y
Skate Park or Plaza
Y
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
Y
On-site Parking
y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
12.85 acres
Parking for 80 cars
FEBRUARY 2012
3-17
CITY OF LA MESA
Severin Dr
a Pl
Park Plaza Dr
Dr
Sinjon Cr
Ea rl S
t
y
Nage l St
Ama
Ama
t
ya C
ya D
r
Campina Dr
Lore
n
Dr
r
rie
R
d
Urban
B
Ln
da
Dr
Dr
er D
Cent
r
BRIERCREST PARK
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-18
D
Ho
w
Veemac Av
Dixie Dr
South Lake Ct
Sw a
lero
R
d
popk
Lak e
A
Lubbock Av
Na
nc
y
Thrasher Wy
Garden Grove Ln
Meadow Crest Dr
East Lake Dr
Pl
tha b
a ska
Dr
he a
d
San Angelo Av
Sa rita S
t
n
NORTHMONT PARK
Alvarado Av
Av
Kel
ton
LA MESITA PARK
Cleburn Dr
er P
tch
Fle
v
il lo A
Ama r
b
Lam
ire Av
Yorks h
Ta u St
i St
Ch
Pampa St
Elden St
Dr
St
Zeta
Crockett St
Delta St
or
an
ll m
Me
St
Sudy
rto
Ho
Van Horn St
t
yS
Cla
Derk
t
pa S
Kap
SON PARK
Lak
eA
rrow
l
ur
ra
yB
M
Continue
Dalhart Av
Dr
Midland St
Lak
eA
Bould
e r Lak
El Paso St
Flume Rd
Manor Dr
r
Tr
d
D
ley
l
ne
Abile
nt R
r
P
ain
Bl
Denton St
o
am
Alt
n
Sta
Dallas St
Nentra St
Jac
kso
n
Blue Lake Dr
r
Fe
nor D
W Ma
Av
Lake Aria na
v
oA
Av
ke Av
Amber La
Dr
no Av
Alba
Lak e
as
Altur
Lak e
Ja
ck
so
n
rag
La
ke
An
r
eA
Lak
ke
La
D
la
ge
Rd
en R
Dry d
Southe rn Rd
Av
nd
na
di
St
Blanchard Rd
al
Av
Av
lin
La
ke
Ar
y
La
ke
A
am
ath
Ch
Ln
Calvin
W
poon
ke
La
Cata ra c
t Pl
At
An
vi
l
Dr
Dr
m
sh
r
Garfield Av
La
ke
La
ke
D
ke
La
Av
Ju
ne
e
er
rs
Wit he
Adlon Dr
M
on
o
Odessa Av
e Av
Figure 3.9—Existing Park Service Area- La Mesita Park
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Northmont Park
Northmont Park is a quiet park with rolling turf areas and several large shade
trees. It provides space for more passive ac vi es. The park's playground has
been targeted to receive renova ons by the La Mesa Park and Recrea on
Founda on, and CIP funds will provide new picnic pavilions. On-site parking,
a restroom facility, individual picnic areas, and an older par course are also
available.
Table 3.9—Existing Facilities- Northmont Park
Group Picnic Area
-
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
Y
Barbecue
Y
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
-
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Walking/Running Trails
Y
Neighborhood Park
Parcourse
y
Acres and Parking:
Off-leash Dog Area
-
5.05 acres
Tennis Courts
-
Parking for 10 cars
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
Y
On-site Parking
y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
6030 Severin Drive
La Mesa, CA 91942
Type of Park:
FEBRUARY 2012
3-19
CITY OF LA MESA
p
Po
pp
y
Pl
ya D
r
Ln
Rd
Lak ev
iew D
r
Campina Dr
Janfre
d
Dr
on
St
Dr
La Suvid
a Dr
r
m
Le
t
Dr
Hilmer
Lore n Dr
Dr
in
Se ver
m
ko
No
re s
tD
Wy
nS
lde
Mi
Urban
BRIERCREST PARK
Br
ie r
c
Mo
no
na
HARRY GRIFFEN P
Jan Dr
Ama
Jo
el
Je
ric
ho
t
ya C
Ama
Dr
ro
se
Pr
im
St
He
nd
er
so
Br
n
oa
Dr
dm
oo
rD
r
W
hi
te
Brie r Rd
Dr
Murray D
Ea rl S
t
Alvarado Av
r
Kimi Ln
Dr
Dr
Ho
we
ll
Sinjon Cr
Cleburn Dr
Delta St
r
Sisson St
Co
tto
n
Dixie Dr
Dr
Gre gory St
Na
nc
y
Veemac Av
St
Sudy
n
rto
Ho
NORTHMONT PARK
Elden St
r
nte
av en
D
De Camp Dr
Fletcher Py
Park Plaza Dr
Manor Dr
Van Horn St
rD
no
Falmouth Dr
Wy
she
r
Thr
a
d
Sw a
lero
R
e Dr
Ea st L
ak
LA MESITA PARK
Rd
r
Lubbock Av
Sout he rn
r
Crockett St
Odessa Av
am
Alt
Rd
d
D
ley
Dallas St
Pampa St
Charles Wy
R
ont
n
Sta
Flume Rd
ere
em
dg
e
W
Cre sth
r
Virginia
Ct
Fernwood Dr
Lak e
A
D
Rd
nor D
W Ma
South Lake Ct
popk
a Pl
tha b
a ska
Dr
he a
d
Lak
eA
rrow
el
a
r
Fe
nd
na
di
Dr
Blue Lake Dr
San Angelo Av
ng
res t
v
Lak
eA
A
wC
La
ke
do
Mea
Pl
Figure 3.10—Existing Park Service Area- Northmont Park
W
at
er
St
S
is
t
y
Murra
Dr
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-20
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.1.3 Southwest Quadrant
The Southwest Quadrant is made up of Highwood Park, Rolando Park, Sunshine Park, and Vista La Mesa Park.
Highwood Park
Highwood Park is very under-u lized, but has great poten al for addi onal
programing and access connec ons. The park includes group and individual
picnic areas, a children's playground, sloped lawn areas for informal play,
and a restroom. It is the star ng point for the Challenge Urban Walking
trail, which con nues on a 3.5 mile advanced walk through the community.
"The Club" Teen Center, operated by the Boys & Girls Clubs of East County,
is also located in this park.
Table 3.10—Existing Facilities- Highwood Park
This property is owned by La
Mesa-Spring Valley School
Y
Group Picnic Area
District and operated by the
City as a park.
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
Address:
7777 Junior High Drive
La Mesa, CA 91941
Adjacent to La Mesa Middle School
Type of Park:
Neighborhood Park
Acres and Parking:
8.0 acres
Parking for 42 cars
FEBRUARY 2012
Benches
-
Barbecue
Y
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
-
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Walking/Running Trails
y
Parcourse
-
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
On-site Parking
Y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
3-21
CITY OF LA MESA
Dr
Dr
n
Sh
el
do
Dr
m
it
Su
m
gs
te
n
Wet he rly St
Tu
n
r
ge Dr
Ea strid
ow
ad
Sh
Dr
D
ll
Hi
r
hS
Hig
t
y
rr
ua
Q
R
d
v
nA
ca
i
r
e
Am
Hill Rd
t
o Dr
m
Sa cra
ento D
Ca
rb
oC
y
Murra
Chic ag
e
Mont
H
v
dA
oo
w
igh
Denver Dr
Se att le
D
St
Dr
Av
De
xte
r
Cin
thia
Wy
View
Dr
Cobalt
Dr
HIGHWOOD PARK
Dr
Dr
l
n
ri e
O
Phoe
nix D
r
CO
Topaz Ct
rley
Hu
l
Pasadena Av
Gates
id
Parks Av
Troy Ln
We
s tv
i ew
Culbertson Av
Olive Av
v
Pomona
A
Harvard Av
Dr
t
Lav a C
Av
t
o
ni
Ju
igh
rH
Av
r
s
rk
Pa
ll S
we
Lo
Av
i en
Or
St
Dr
d
03r
Va
l le
Av
r
sor D
Wind
Pa
sad
en
a
r
Beve rly Dr
on
Av
Av
Av
ley
Fin
lm
Pa
Vis
ta D
D
ar
ab
nn
Ci
al
rm
No
Av
i en
Or
Harris St
v
nA
Ln
Pl
Av
ive
Ol
l
rie
Mu
Apore St
o
Lem
t
gS
rin r
Sp
D
bo
Ne
t
Fai
rv ie
wA
v
Av
eS
ap
Gr
v
eA
pl
Ma
Av
ss
ge
r
u
St
t
d
bu
se
Ro
t
ell S
Low
er
iv
Un
v
yA
sit
Av
le
Da
rd Av
v
eA
Le
oint Av
La Mes a B
l
S
ce
in
Qu
Seneca Pl
Lowell Ct
Ln
a
ac i
Ac
Seneca Pl
on
v
te A
Da
l
Av
P
ve
Oli
rr
ma
Ci
ple
Ma
Jes sie Av
therine Pl
Figure 3.11—Existing Park Service Area- Highwood Park
r
High Ct
Grove St
Rivie ra Dr
B
ay
w
ad
ro
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-22
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Rolando Park
Rolando Park is oriented around two baseball fields and is u lized by the
Li le League. It includes a concession stand, ba ng cages, restrooms,
picnic tables, and a shaded area for children's play structures. There is
very limited space for other recrea onal development. In 2009, the San
Diego Padres revitalized one of the ball fields.
Table 3.11—Existing Facilities- Rolando Park
Group Picnic Area
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
Y
Barbecue
Y
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Y
6600 Vigo Drive
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
La Mesa, CA 91942
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Type of Park:
Walking/Running Trails
-
Neighborhood Park
Parcourse
-
Acres and Parking:
Off-leash Dog Area
-
3.56 acres
Tennis Courts
-
Parking for 40 cars
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
Y
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
On-site Parking
y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
FEBRUARY 2012
3-23
CITY OF LA MESA
l en
Va
Bruce Ct
W
Alamo Dr
Vette r P
l
71s t St
Gordon Wy
Elma Ln
y
Ara g
on W
Dr
Lerid
a
Berkeley Dr
Annapolis Av
Neri Dr
70th St
Vigo Dr
r
t
68th S
v
69th St
Dr
S
r
Charles St
Dr
lta D
VISTA LA MESA PARK
Violet St
O
Stuart Av
King St
gon
r
St
Hope St
Missy Ct
y
Ara
D
aA
Lom
e
nd
ra
Bing St
Hybe th
Donna Av
G
i an
Viv
Celia Vis ta Dr
W
ita
Cas
a
st
Vi
Harvala St
ard Dr
Blackton Dr
Boulev
Hoffman Av
Massachuse tts Av
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
Paula St
v
ity A
v ers
Uni
Loi
s
St
ue A
Purd
Marian St
Marraco Dr
do
lan
Ro
sD
oll
Kn
r
Jeff
St
Princeton Av
Stanford Av
ROLANDO PARK
r
Vassar Av
Cornell Av
Cornell A
Alamo Wy
r
Dr
mD
il lo
Rev
lo Dr
Bonil
col
Mal
aD
Norma ndie Pl
Toni Ln
68th St
Judson Wy
Alamo Ct
oD
Estelle St
Le
rid
SUNSHINE PARK
Pa
tr
ia
D
o Bl
Rola nd
Revillo Wy
tar
Ma
Bradford St
Dr
r
r
Acorn St
To
le
do
Terry Ln
Camellia Dr
D
cia
Virginia Av
Stanley Av
73rd St
Tower St
Dauer Av
Solita Av
71st St
Adams Av
Dana Dr
Century St
Harbinson Av
Rosefield Dr
67th St
Solita Av
Juliette Pl
Colony Rd
Norma ndie Pl
Rosefield Dr
68th St
Av
Lenore Dr
D
r
St
Se
m
in
ol
e
Eberhart St
Rolando Bl
Art
Filipo St
El
C
t
aj
on
B
l
tS
Ar
Sh
an
no
n
71st St
Figure 3.12—Existing Park Service Area- Rolando Park
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-24
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Sunshine Park
Sunshine Park is adjacent to Rolando Elementary School and is on La
Mesa-Spring Valley School District property. It is adjacent to a highly
trafficked street, 70th Street. There is no on-site parking and it consists
of a mul purpose field, restrooms, and picnic area. Access to this park
is difficult and it is under-u lized. It does not contain many programed
features, but has great poten al for addi onal recrea on development.
ADA upgrades and new picnic pavilions have been scheduled for this park
and will be installed with CIP funds.
Table 3.12—Existing Facilities- Sunshine Park
Group Picnic Area
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
-
Barbecue
Y
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
-
4554 70th Street
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
-
La Mesa, CA 91941
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
70th Street and Tower Street
Walking/Running Trails
-
Type of Park:
Parcourse
-
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
y
On-site Parking
-
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
Neighborhood Park
Acres and Parking:
2.31 acres
Street parking only
FEBRUARY 2012
3-25
CITY OF LA MESA
Olive Av
Terry Ln
73rd St
Dauer Av
Katherine Pl
Benton Wy
Norma ndie Pl
St
u
Purd
e Av
Loi
s
Univ
D
r
Marian St
lta
Missy Ct
69th St
A
W
ita
Cas
a
m
Lo
Harvala St
Yale Av
Neri Dr
ard Dr
Dr
Hybe th
Harvard Av
Vette r P
l
Annapolis Av
Boulev
Vivian
St
73rd St
72nd St
71st St
71st St
71s t St
Gordon Wy
Berkeley Dr
ll
we
Lo
Vigo Dr
r
t
68th S
Alamo Dr
d
lan
Ro
D
lls
no
oK
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
Vista Grande Dr
Lowell Ct
Princeton Av
West Point Av
Elma Ln
Alamo Ct
y
Ara g
on W
Dr
Bruce Ct
S
Vassar Av
Cornell Av
Cornell Av
Stanford Av
r
Lerid
a
SUNSHINE PARK
Alamo Wy
ROLANDO PARK
lm D r
Malco
v
Oli
Seneca Pl
y Av
ersit
ton
Black
t
ell S
Low
oD
Dr
Marraco Dr
Toni Ln
68th St
r
ia
D
o Bl
Rola nd
Revillo Wy
Judson Wy
r
Dr
tar
Ma
il lo
Rev
Dr
70th St
Lenore Dr
D
cia
To
le
do
Harbinson Av
Rolando Bl
Filipo St
Aragon Dr
Camellia Dr
Ohio
Jes sie Av
Tower St
Pomona Av
Adams Av
elle St
Colony Rd
Rosefield Dr
Century St
Solita Av
Juliette Pl
Zel da Av
Rosefield Dr
La Mesita Pl
Watson Wy
Dana Dr
Av
l en
Va
rd St
71st St
Eberhart St
68th St
t
St
67th St
oC
Dr
Virginia Av
St
Amherst St
69th Pl
Amherst St
Am
he
rst
Sh
an
no
n
olita Av
El Cajon Bl
Norma ndie Pl
Rd
69th St
a nd
Rol
on
ag
Ar
Seminole Dr
uma
68th St
Mont
ez
Dr
Pa
tr
tin
70th St
Figure 3.13—Existing Park Service Area- Sunshine Park
Dr
Sono Pl
ro
Ou
Pl
y
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-26
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Vista La Mesa Park
Vista La Mesa Park includes a Li le League field, as well as several other
program elements. These elements include a restroom and concession
stand, older and younger children's play equipment, individual and group
picnic areas, and a fenced in horseshoe pit. The parking is along the main
street. The park's playground has been targeted to receive renova ons
by the La Mesa Park and Recrea on Founda on. It appears there was an
exis ng picnic pavilion over the group picnic area that was removed, but
will be replaced through Capital Improvement Plans. Concept plans are
also being developed for this park.
Table 3.13—Existing Facilities- Vista La Mesa Park
Group Picnic Area
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
Y
Barbecue
Y
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Y
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Walking/Running Trails
-
Parcourse
-
2.74 acres
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Parking for 25 cars
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
Y
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
Y
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
Y
On-site Parking
Y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
King Street and Hoffman Street
Type of Park:
Neighborhood Park
Acres and Parking:
FEBRUARY 2012
3-27
CITY OF LA MESA
Dr
69th St
Harvard Av
Harris St
Capitol St
Bass St
Vista Av
Massachusetts Av
Paula St
Violet St
Jill Ln
Shirlene Pl
King St
Waite Dr
Lime St
lB
l
Pacific Av
Westview Pl
Corona St
West St
Daytona St
New Jersey Av
ra
de
Fe
West St
Broadway
Thorn St
Harris St
St
Sageflower Dr
North Av
Harris St
n
to
gs
n
i
Liv
North Av
Citrus St
ov
e
North Av
Gr
Co
lle
ge
Av
Vista Av
St
Meridian Av
Lem
aran
d
Carmenita Rd
Duchess St
Dr
y
Sparling St
69th St
r
Av
au
ss
Na
st
Hershey St
69th St
Donna Av
Loma Alta Dr
Casita Wy
olk D
Dr
Waite Dr
Pearson St
Alford St
Hope St
Racine Rd
Vista Grande Dr
Odom St
Veronica Av
Suff
r
VISTA LA MESA PARK
Ea
s tr
idg
Hill Rd
Marlowe Dr
r
Coll
ege
w Wy
n Vie
Ocea
Hannibal Pl
D
gon
Ara
St
en
St
O
y
Murra
t
an S
Zen
aD
Hoffman Av
Apore St
Charles St
t
Billm
Peri
que
King St
nS
St
Celia Vista Dr
Pl
Stuart Av
Donna Av
ia
Viv
Bing
Dr
ro
Ou
Marian St
Rolando Bl
Dr
t
Av
ard Dr
Hybeth
Missy Ct
y
ersit
Yale Av
Boulev
Harvala St
Kemper St
Oxford
Av
Ha
rb
in
so
n
Univ
Blackton Dr
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
Butler Pl
view
v
ue A
Purd
Loi
sS
t
r
illo
Bon
Jeff
S
Elma Ln
Alamo Dr
Le
ri d
a
Vigo Dr
Neri Dr
70th St
St
68th
r
lm D
alco
D
illo
Dr
Rev
ROLANDO PARK
St
Figure 3.14—Existing Park Service Area- Vista La Mesa
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-28
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.1.5 Southeast Quadrant
The Southeast Quadrant contains Collier Park, MacArthur Park, and Porter Park.
Collier Park
Collier Park includes lit tennis courts, children's play areas, a picnic area,
and a restroom facility. Collier Park is the City's oldest park and is currently going through renova on planning. The park's playground has
been targeted to receive renova ons by the La Mesa Park and Recrea on Founda on. It has also recently been master planned and has been
divided into two phases.
Table 3.14—Existing Facilities- Collier Park
Once funding is available,
the implementa on of this
Group Picnic Area
master plan will greatly
encourage new visitors. It
Y
Individual Picnic Tables
will increase the program
within the park, providing
Y
Benches
both passive and ac ve
Y
Barbecue
ac vi es.
Address:
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Y
4401 Palm Avenue
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
Neighborhood Park
Walking/Running Trails
-
Acres and Parking:
Parcourse
-
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Tennis Courts
Y
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
Y
On-site Parking
Y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Type of Park:
7.7 acres
Parking for 25 cars
FEBRUARY 2012
3-29
CITY OF LA MESA
Figure 3.15—Existing Park Service Area- Collier Park
Boulde
Dr
Cobalt
Dr
gs
te
n
Dr
idge
Garfield St
Glen St
Scenic Ln
Panorama Dr
Fabienne Wy
Echo Dr
Porter Rd
Su
m
Rd
Mariposa St
Tu
n
Rockledge
o
Sa n
r
Pa rk
Ln
Cte
Echo Dr
Bellflower Dr
COLLIER PARK
t
ar D
Dr
Ea s
tr
Carlin Pl
Upland St
Pasadena Av
m
it
Dr
Butte St
Glenira Wy
Dr
n
Sh
el
do
Ga
Alp
Echo Ct
Dr
St
We
s tv
i ew
Alpine Av
Tulare St
hS
Hig
nab
Cin
Av
rley
Hu
d
woo
WOOD PARK
Hi
gh
fie
Glenira Av
Fresno Av
Av
Topaz Ct
High
Av
i en
Or
Dr
gh
Hi
Dr
Av
Dr
Sunrise Av
Beve rly Dr
on
Av
al
rm
No
Va
l le
St
v
eA
pl
Ma
r
sor D
Wind
Pa
sad
en
a
r
Chev y Chas e Dr
Av
Vis
ta D
Av
ley
Fin
r
t
g S ebo D
rin
N
Sp
v
eA
Le
t
eS
ap
Gr
Fai
rv ie
wA
v
v
te A
Da
t
v
aA
ac i
Ac
n
aL
Alt
S
ce
in
u
Q
v
nA
h
04t
o
Lem
d
03r
n
Ln
Bl
lm
Pa
ro
ar
m
sa
Me
La
Av
Av
es t
lcr
Hil
Ln
ve r
Oli
e
ng
Ora
Randlett Dr
r Pl
Allison Av
rter Pl
Suncrest Dr
Wy
M
Cypress St
Pine St
Palm Av
r
Date Av
D
bo
Ne
University Pl
v
nA
J
Edenvale Av
Mills St
Clearview Wy
r
Culowee St
se n
Lar
PORTER PARK
y Av
ersit
Univ
El Capitan Dr
rso
ffe
Je
Dr
r
eD
Orchard Av
Dr
n
so
ck
Ja
R
ch
oa
t
a
lin
Co
nS
Gle
l
D
bo
Ne
Av
d Av
B
ajon
El C
or
lti m
Ba
va
Gua
MACARTHUR PARK
Dr
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-30
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
MacArthur Park
MacArthur Park contains a variety of ac vi es. It includes a municipal
pool, and Nan Couts Co age is o en u lized for events. The park includes a community center, a recrea on center, and a baseball field.
In addi on, picnic areas, children's play equipment, on-site parking,
restrooms, and basketball courts can be found within this park. The
nine hole, par three golf course occupies a majority of the park and also
includes a driving range and pu ng and chipping area. Porter Hall is also
located in MacArthur Park and is the home of the Foothills Art Associaon Art Gallery.
Table 3.15—Existing Facilities- MacArthur Park
Group Picnic Area
-
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
Y
Barbecue
-
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
-
4975 Memorial Drive
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Y
La Mesa, CA 91942
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
Y
Corner of University Avenue and Memorial Drive
Walking/Running Trails
-
Type of Park:
Parcourse
-
Community Park
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Acres and Parking:
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
Y
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
Y
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
-
Golf
Y
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
On-site Parking
Y
Restroom
Y
Amphitheater
-
Address:
22.22 acres
Parking for 290 cars
FEBRUARY 2012
3-31
CITY OF LA MESA
Figure 3.16—Existing Park Service Area- MacArthur Park
Wilson St
Linden Wy
Garfield St
Cypress St
Alpine Av
r Pl
Boulde
Garfield
Butte St
Glen St
Alpine A
Fresno Av
Tulare St
Pasadena Av
COLLIER PARK
Panorama Dr
Av
Moisan
Glenira Av
Scenic Ln
Dr
Beve rl
y Dr
Sunrise Av
Carlin Pl
Pa
sad
en
a
n
Wy
Av
H
Upland St
No
rm
al
Av
mi
t
r
Av
Av
le
r
sor D
Wind
Vis
ta D
St
Dr
St
Su
m
Av
ley
Fin
Chev y Chas e Dr
lm
Pa
Fai
rv ie
wA
v
h
04t
d
03r
v
nA
t
Dr
gS
rin Nebo
Sp
We
s tv
i ew
Bl
o
Lem
v
aA
ac i
Ac
n
aL
Alt
Av
e
ap
Gr
St
La
sa
Me
v
te A
Da
t
Lemon Cr
S
ce
in
Qu
v
eA
Av
es t
lcr
Hil
Ln
ve r
Oli
ng
Ora
Pine St
Allison Av
est Dr
n
rso
ffe
Je
Johns
Edenvale Av
Mills St
Palm Av
University Pl
r
Date Av
Guava Av
Clearview Wy
D
bo
Ne
Culowee St
Rd
Dr
Univ
El Capitan Dr
se
Lar
PORTER PARK
y Av
ersit
Av
n
so
ck
Ja
r
r
Orchard Av
n
gto
t
C
Dr
n
shi
Wa
nS
Gle
eD
D
bo
Ne
or
lti m
Ba
l
a
in
ol
Randlett Dr
MACARTHUR PARK
Hill T
r
Porter Hill Rd
Roac h
Dr
Porte
r
Gro
Da
ile
y
Hayes St
Glen St
Pl
Tio Diego
Center St
Marlen Wy
Commercial St
B
ajon
El C
St
Randlett Dr
Case St
l es
rcu
He
t
Industrial Ln
y
Center Dr
er P
tch
Fle
r
S
ken
Tim
yD
k wa
Pa r
Mariposa St
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-32
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Porter Park
Porter park is extremely small, but is important to the
aging community in La Mesa. Adjacent to the park is the
La Mesa Adult Enrichment Center (AEC), which promotes
healthy, ac ve aging through crea ve and extensive programs. This building is owned and operated by the City of
La Mesa. A ground-breaking ceremony occurred recently
for the addi on of outdoor fitness equipment funded by
CIP monies and grant funds. A triangular area, across from
the AEC, is a small garden area created by the street intersec ons.
Table 3.16—Existing Facilities- Porter Park
Group Picnic Area
-
Individual Picnic Tables
Y
Benches
Y
Barbecue
-
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
-
Neighborhood Park
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
-
Acres and Parking:
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
-
0.83 acres
Walking/Running Trails
-
Parking for 21 cars (4 disabled spaces) at the Adult Enrichment Center
Parcourse
Y
Off-leash Dog Area
-
Tennis Courts
-
Basketball
-
Soccer Field / Football
-
Baseball/So ball
-
Skate Park or Plaza
-
Horseshoes
Y
Golf
-
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
-
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
-
On-site Parking
-
Restroom
-
Amphitheater
-
Address:
8425 University Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91941
Type of Park:
FEBRUARY 2012
3-33
CITY OF LA MESA
Figure 3.17—Existing Park Service Area- Porter Park
Da
te A
v
Linden Wy
Randlett Dr
r Pl
Boulde
Garfield
Butte St
Glen St
Alpine A
Tulare St
Pasadena Av
COLLIER PARK
Scenic Ln
Fresno Av
Mariposa St
Panorama Dr
Dr
n
Av
Glenira Av
Alpine Av
Bellflower Dr
Dr
Sh
el
do
Sunrise Av
Carlin Pl
Dr
St
We
s tv
i ew
h
04t
Be
ve
rly
Va
Dr
l le
Dr
St
Dr
Pa
sad
en
a
Moisan
H
Av
on
Av
Av
mi
t
r
d
03r
Av
le
al
rm
No
r
sor D
Wind
Vis
ta D
Av
ley
Fin
r
t
g S ebo D
rin
N
Sp
Su
m
lm
Pa
Av
e
ap
Gr
St
Fai
rv ie
wA
v
v
te A
Da
t
v
aA
ac i
Ac
n
aL
Alt
S
ce
in
Qu
v
nA
Wy
Av
Cypress St
Bl
o
Lem
n
Chev y Chas e Dr
Upland St
La
sa
Me
Av
es t
lcr
Hil
Ln
ve r
Oli
v
eA
n
rso
ffe
Je
Johns
Allison Av
rest Dr
ng
Ora
Pine St
Palm Av
Date Av
r
University Pl
Edenvale Av
Mills St
Clearview Wy
D
bo
Ne
Culowee St
Rd
Dr
Univ
El Capitan Dr
se
Lar
PORTER PARK
y Av
ersit
Av
n
so
ck
Ja
r
r
Orchard Av
n
gto
t
eD
a
lin
Co
Dr
n
shi
Wa
Gro
Da
ile
y
Hayes St
nS
Gle
l
D
bo
Ne
Av
B
ajon
El C
or
lti m
Ba
va
Gua
MACARTHUR PARK
Hill T
r
Porter Hill Rd
Roac h
Dr
Porte
r
Wilson St
Pl
Tio Diego
Center St
Marlen Wy
Commercial St
Randlett Dr
Case St
t
Garfield St
S
l es
rcu
He
Glen St
r
Center Dr
D
way
Industrial Ln
k
Pa r
The exis ng service area using a 15 minute walk me and the exis ng walking network reflec ng exis ng gaps.
3-34
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
3.2 Existing Parks Adjacent to La Mesa
There area several parks adjacent to the City of La Mesa that are u lized daily by residents and provide unique recrea onal opportuni es.
3.2.1 Lake Murray
Lake Murray provides opportuni es for bike riding, jogging, walking, rollerblading, and picnicking along its 3.2 miles of shore line. More unique to this area is the available fishing and boa ng
recrea onal opportuni es. When it is full, the reservoir has 171.1 surface acres and is 95 feet deep
in areas. The reservoir is located between La Mesa, Santee, and the City of San Diego, within the
boundary of Mission Trails Regional Park.
3.2.2 Mission Trails Regional Park
Mission Trails Regional Park is just north of the City of La Mesa. It includes approximately 5,800
acres of both natural and developed recrea onal acres and includes Lake Murray. There are over
40-miles of trails that traverse over hills and down valleys, with habitat that is na ve to the San Diego region. It also includes camping at Kumeyaay Lake and a state-of-the-art Visitor and Interpre ve
Center where visitors can explore the cultural, historical, and recrea onal aspects of San Diego.
3.2.3 Eucalyptus Park
Eucalyptus County Park is 6.45 acres and is at the southeast edge of La Mesa. It is a tradi onal style
park and includes facili es such as horseshoe pits, playground, restrooms, and a pavilion, which is
o en u lized by La Mesa residents.
3.4 Existing Parks Within San Diego County
In addi on to parks adjacent to the City of La Mesa, ques onnaire par cipants also iden fied
several other parks which they frequently visit throughout the County of San Diego. These include
San Carlos, Liberty Sta on, Cuyamaca State Park, Mission Bay, Trolley Barn Park, and Pioneer Park
in Mission Hills, Mast Park in Santee, along with Santee Lakes, Torrey Pines State Park, Silver Strand
State Park, William Heise County Park, La Jolla Shores Park, Balboa Park, San Diego Botanic Garden,
and the Water Conserva on Garden. The parks are all too far away for residents of La Mesa to access by walking or biking, but are resources that are u lized for recrea onal ac vi es and contribute to the overall goals of crea ng a healthy city in La Mesa.
Lake Murray and Mission Trails Regional Park are popular des na ons for La Mesa residents
FEBRUARY 2012
3-35
CITY OF LA MESA
3.5 Existing Joint Use Agreements
There is an exis ng joint use agreement with the City of La Mesa and the La Mesa-Spring Valley
School District in which the District allows the City to u lize its land and facili es for recrea onal
purposes in exchange for the use of the La Mesa Community Center. Maintenance, repairs, and improvements are divided between both the District and the City. There are also a variety of facili es
at various loca ons available for use. The facili es and maintenance schedule is highlighted in Table
3.17. An agreement between the City and Grossmont Union High School District allows youth sports
leagues to use the fields.
Table 3.17—Joint Use Agreements
Quadrant
Field Loca on by
School
Type of Field
Maintenance Responsibili es
City
Northwest
Northeast
District
Maryland Avenue
Elementary
Baseball
None
All
Murray Manor
Elementary
Baseball (2 Fields)
None
All
Jackson Park adjacent
to Murray Manor
Park
All
None
Parkway Middle
School- Junior Seau
Sports Complex
Football
Synthe c turf maintenance and repairs,
drainage, lights
Keeping sidewalks clean
Soccer
Keeping sidewalks clean
Natural turf maintenance to include: seeding, mowing, fer lizing,
aera ng, irriga on,
lights
Baseball Field #1
Baseball Field #2
Baseball Field #3
None
Miscellaneous complex Restroom/snack bar
ameni es
building, fences, gates,
bleachers, lights, scoreboards, parking lots
Southwest
Southeast
3-36
Northmont Elementary Baseball/Soccer
None
All
Rolando Elementary
None
All
Sunshine Park adjacent Park
to Rolando Elementary
All
None
La Mesa Dale
Elementary
So ball
None
All
La Mesa Middle
Upper Field-Baseball
None
All
Lower Field-Soccer
None
All
Highwood Park adjaPark
cent to La Mesa Middle
All
None
Lemon Avenue
Elementary
Baseball
None
All
Murdock Elementary
Baseball
None
All
Baseball (4 Fields)
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Chapter 4
4.0 Parks Distribution and Access Analysis
Based on exis ng condi ons, La Mesa policies, and guidelines established by the Na onal Recrea on and Park Associa on and the California Office of Planning and Research for developing a Park
and Recrea on Element of a General Plan, park deficiencies and opportuni es within the exis ng
network of parks and open space in La Mesa were analyzed. Demographic characteris cs of service
areas, geographic distribu on and access to parks throughout the City were analyzed.
4.1 Geographic Modeling
Geographic Informa on Systems (GIS) are o en u lized to complete geographic analysis and to produce maps that communicate complex rela onships. These systems use geographic data to reveal
trends in demographics, deficiencies and opportuni es, and gaps in systems. This informa on can
then be used to iden fy new park and recrea on distribu on or quan ta ve deficiencies.
4.1.1 Model Overview
Models and maps were generated to understand trends, opportuni es, and constraints for access
to parks throughout La Mesa. Popula on densi es for different age groups, service areas within a
15-minute walk me from a park, and bike and walk barriers were analyzed.
FEBRUARY 2012
4-1
CITY OF LA MESA
4.2 Access Analysis
Analysis standards were created to review exis ng condi ons for deficiencies and opportuni es, as
well as to analyze the distribu on and equitable park access to all residents of La Mesa. Ensuring a
more complete park network that connects and leads to parks is another way to improve access to
parks.
4.2.1 Barriers to Walking to Parks
There are several barriers that may keep individuals from walking. Barriers to
walking include the absence of walkways, a walkway that is blocked, narrow walkways, tripping hazards, busy streets, or vehicles parked on a sidewalk. Improving
connec ons would improve access to parks. Intersec ons can be major barriers to walking if they are missing key design elements that make them safer and
easier to use. There are also safety concerns related to high volume streets, wide
streets, or streets where speeding occurs. These concerns may keep an individual
from choosing to walk to a public park. Safety percep on can also be affected by
ligh ng. A large percentage of people par cipa ng in the ques onnaire felt be er
ligh ng would improve access to and within parks.
4.2.2 Barriers to Cycling to Parks
La Mesa has established bike facili es throughout the City, but many of them are
disjointed. The biggest barrier to cycling is the lack of bicycle facili es, including
bike lanes, routes, or paths. When a lane, route, or path ends and is not connected, the rider is forced to ride in the street with cars, which makes a large percentage of cyclists nervous and may dissuade them from riding. In addi on to a lack
of on-street facili es, the lack of bike parking op ons and changing facili es in
the workplace can also dissuade cyclists from using cycling as an alterna ve form
of transporta on. The Bicycle Master Plan outlines suggested bike path addi ons.
4.2.3 Existing Barriers that are Not Likely to Change
Barriers to walking are the main reason many people don't walk or bike to parks. Freeways, such as
I-8 and SR-125, act as major obstacles that bisect the city from north to south and east to west. As
a pedestrian or cyclist, it is o en difficult or some mes even impossible to traverse these barriers.
In addi on to the freeways, La Mesa has several major arterial streets, including University Avenue, Spring Street, La Mesa Boulevard,
Fletcher Parkway, Jackson Drive, Lake
Murray Boulevard, and 70th Street, that
may be easier to navigate, but s ll act
as barriers given the scale and speeds at
which cars are traveling. Well designed
intersec ons make these barriers a li le
more manageable. Addi onally, La Mesa
has two trolley lines, plus the freeways
and arterial streets, making certain areas
of the City more challenging to improve
access to parks. Another type of barrier
that is common in La Mesa is that there
are many canyons created by the varying
topography, making it difficult to meet
the 15 minute walking distance goal.
4-2
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.2.4 Existing Barriers that Can Be Changed
Many barriers that exist have the poten al to be changed to improve access and connec vity. O en
there are safety percep ons that keep people from accessing or using a park. Park enhancements
can make police patrols a more effec ve tool. The safety percep ons can be changed by improving
design and maintenance, adding ligh ng, and increasing the number of people u lizing a corridor or
park. Gaps in walkways or bike facili es are also examples of barriers that can be improved. Perhaps
the largest barrier is the assump on that a des na on is too far away, or too difficult to physically
get to. These walkability concerns can be personal percep ons that can be overcome with programs
and educa on. With an increased personal and social interest in healthy ac vi es, these distances
become something sought a er instead of something to avoid.
The project goal of distribu ng parks throughout the community is important in helping to remove
the percep on of too great of distances for walking. When a park is visible in a neighborhood, when
people pass by the park on a regular basis, even in vehicles, they perceive that the park is closer
to their home, than when it is only infrequently passed. This out-of-site, out-of-mind phenomenon
can affect behavior. A person is more likely to walk or ride to the park and they are more likely to
frequent the park for healthy ac vi es when the park is familiar and has safe access.
4.2.5 Role of Transit in Access
Well connected transit systems have the potenal to increase access to parks when transit stops
are in close proximity to a des na on. MacArthur
Park and Porter Park are both close to bus stops.
Access from transit to other parks is limited in La
Mesa and is not likely to bring in park visitors from
outside of the community. Transit could poten ally
provide more access to parks and increase visitors
if the exis ng transit system were developed further and if proposed urban trails and linear parks
were to be established in areas closer to the LRT
transit stops.
FEBRUARY 2012
4-3
CITY OF LA MESA
4.2.6 Existing Park Service Area Analysis
An exis ng park service area analysis was completed using GIS modeling. The currently adopted
General Plan includes a policy that park facili es should be situated so that no residen al unit is more
than one mile from a recrea onal facility. The City is currently mee ng this policy (see Figure 4.1).
According to Ac ve Living Research, a na onal program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundaon, “Regular physical ac vity increases longevity, well being, helps children and adults maintain a
healthy weight, and can reduce the risk for obesity and its related health consequences. Parks and
playgrounds provide a wide variety of opportuni es for physical ac vity and the have the poten al
to help many Americans lead a more ac ve lifestyle.”¹ In the research synthesis prepared by Ac ve
Living Research quo ng a study by Kaczynski and Henderson, “park proximity is associated with
higher levels of park use and physical ac vity among a variety of popula ons, par cularly youth.”²
A goal of this study is to convert the one-mile policy into a 15-minute walk to parks policy. Based
on exis ng walking facili es and connec ons, both a one-mile distance and a 15-minute walk me
distance has been calculated from exis ng parks to residen al areas. Non-residen al land uses are
not included in the analysis, since the policy is based on residen al access to parks. The resul ng
service areas take into account all access to parks via the exis ng walkway network, including any
trails, or access across major paved areas open to the public, such as large parking lots. The road
networks in neighborhoods that by current policy have been approved without the requirement for
sidewalks, were included in the access study. The analysis assumes that individuals in these neighborhoods commonly walk in the street and would con nue to do so. Through this analysis, gaps in
service areas are quickly revealed (see Figure 4.2).
¹ Parks, Playgrounds and Ac ve Living. (February 2010). Ac ve Living Research, p.1
² Parks, Playgrounds and Ac ve Living. (February 2010). Ac ve Living Research, p. 2.
4-4
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Figure 4.1—Existing Composite Park Service Area- 1 Mile Distance
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Valle De Oro
HIGHWOOD PARK
Legend
City Parks
·
2010 Residential Land Use within 1 Mile
Non-Residential Land Use within 1 Mile
VISTA LA MESA PARK
2010 Residential Land Use Outside 1 Mile
Spring Valley
Non-Residential Land Use Outside 1 Mile
Lemon Grove
FEBRUARY 2012
4-5
CITY OF LA MESA
4.2.7 Walking Speeds and Access Distances
The average human walking speed varies greatly depending on the individual's fitness level, the
walking surface, and the walking surface incline, but is usually about 3-4 miles
per hour. However, with the addi on of intersec on crossings within a city,
the average speed typically drops to about 2.5 miles per hour. At that pace, a
human has the ability to travel .625 miles in 15 minutes, or just over one-half
mile. This is a reasonable distance to expect someone to walk to a des na on.
This distance and me frame was u lized when reviewing the access to parks.
Figure 4.2 below represents a mapped distance around each park within a
15-minute walk me using only the exis ng walkway networks.
Figure 4.2—Existing Composite Park Service Area- 15 Minute Walk Time Distance (using existing walkway network)
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Valle De Oro
HIGHWOOD PARK
Legend
·
City Parks
2010 Residential Land Use within 15 min Walk Time
VISTA LA MESA PARK
Non-Residential Land Use within 15 Min Walk Time
Spring Valley
Lemon Grove
4-6
2010 Residential Land Use Outside 15 min Walk Tim
Non-Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Tim
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.2.8 Riding Speeds and Access Distances
Bicycle riding is a great way to maneuver through a city. It is faster than walking, but also is a
healthy mode of transporta on. When facili es are available and safety issues have been addressed, biking can be the most efficient mode of transporta on available. The
average riding speed for a human varies greatly, similar to walking speeds. Not
only does the individual's fitness level, the riding surface, and the riding surface
incline affect the riding speed, but the type of bicycle and the cyclist experience
can make a person much faster. For the purposes of this study, an average riding
speed was assumed to be 13 miles per hour. At that pace, a human has the ability
to ride 3.25 miles in 15 minutes using exis ng bike facili es. Using these distances, every residen al area is within a 15 minute ride me of a park. However, the
exis ng bike systems contain gaps or do not directly connect to exis ng parks.
4.3 Demographic Analysis
The demographics of La Mesa were analyzed to evaluate trends in age distribu on adjacent to existing parks and increases in future popula on densi es.
4.3.1 Residential Population Densities
It is important to understand popula on densi es of various age groups when planning for parks.
Different age groups have different physical abili es, interests, and coordina on skills. All these
relate to program elements that may be part of a park. The popula on density maps begin to reveal
concentra ons of age groups which may be located in a specific area in the City or near an exis ng
park. It is important that the ac vi es provided in these parks relate to the age of the user who will
most likely take advantage of the recrea onal opportunity. This can assist in developing a program
for individual parks. Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.7 shows the popula on densi es for six key age groups.
The darker areas have the greater concentra on of a specific age group.
FEBRUARY 2012
4-7
CITY OF LA MESA
Using projected 2030 demographics, Table 4.1 represents the percentage of different age groups found within
the 15-minute walk me of each park. This analysis is helpful to recommend park facili es and program elements related to a specific age group based on those found within close proximity to the parks.
Table 4.1—2030 Age Population Density Summary
Park
Northwest Quadrant
Aztec
5-14 Years
Old
15-19 Years
Old
20-44 Years
Old
45-64 Years
Old
65 and Older
5.67%
8.24%
3.39%
33.34%
21.56%
27.79%
5.88%
8.05%
3.29%
35.56%
21.25%
25.97%
Jackson
5.13%
8.54%
4.01%
32.29%
21.34%
28.68%
Sunset
5.93%
8.24%
2.86%
30.86%
22.31%
29.81%
3.75%
9.14%
4.84%
29.74%
23.45%
29.09%
Briercrest
5.42%
10.14%
4.42%
31.58%
21.61%
26.83%
Harry Griffen
3.01%
8.89%
4.67%
28.22%
23.96%
31.25%
La Mesita
3.91%
9.36%
5.02%
31.17%
23.20%
27.35%
Northmont
3.74%
9.00%
4.94%
29.58%
23.63%
29.11%
6.43%
12.67%
6.46%
35.75%
19.74%
18.95%
Northeast Quadrant
Southwest Quadrant
Highwood
7.91%
12.38%
6.03%
38.36%
19.05%
16.27%
Sunshine
5.47%
11.17%
6.21%
34.81%
22.41%
19.92%
Rolando
5.51%
12.16%
6.77%
34.47%
20.38%
20.71%
Vista La Mesa
6.47%
14.96%
7.03%
34.76%
17.06%
19.72%
6.08%
11.67%
3.84%
32.15%
22.04%
24.23%
Collier
6.22%
11.94%
4.09%
32.38%
21.50%
23.87%
MacArthur
5.81%
11.39%
3.47%
31.37%
22.65%
25.32%
Porter
6.13%
11.63%
3.87%
32.49%
22.09%
23.79%
Southeast Quadrant
4-8
0-4 Years Old
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Figure 4.3—Population Densities- 0 to 4 Years Old
The 0-4 age group is interested in developing all types of skills, including basic motor skills, balance, coordina on,
core, and upper body strength.
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
SUNSET PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
HIGHWOOD PARK
Population Densities
Age 0 - 4 (Pop/Acre)
0-0.5
VISTA LA MESA PARK
0.5-1
1-2
2-4
4+
Figure 4.4—Population Densities- 5 to 14 Years Old
Children in the 5-14 age group are interested in explora on, refining motor skills, hiding places, climbing, spinning
and movement, self challenge, tes ng comfort zones, and social interac ons and development.
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
HIGHWOOD PARK
Population Densities
Age 5-14 (Pop/Acre)
0-1
VISTA LA MESA PARK
1-2
2-4
4-10
10+
FEBRUARY 2012
4-9
CITY OF LA MESA
Figure 4.5—Population Densities- 15 to 19 Years Old
High school aged kids are interested in social ac vi es and organized sports, This group includes the 15-19 year old
age group.
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
SUNSET PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
HIGHWOOD PARK
Population Densities
Age 15-19 (Pop/Acre)
0-0.5
VISTA LA MESA PARK
0.5-1
1-2
2-4
4+
Figure 4.6—Population Densities- 20 to 44 Years Old
The 20-44 year old group become occupied with work and family and tends not to focus on physical ac vi es. However, this group is associated with the 0-4 and 4-14 age groups as these groups are o en their children. They need
programs and ac vi es that all three of these age groups can par cipate in at the same me and loca on.
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
HIGHWOOD PARK
Population Densities
Age 20-44 (Pop/Acre)
0-2
VISTA LA MESA PARK
2-5
5-10
10-25
25+
4-10
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Figure 4.7—Population Densities- 45 to 64 Years Old
Between the ages of 45-64, individuals o en find themselves with the beginning of health issues and warnings that
their bodies aren't in the best shape. This group may find themselves par cipa ng in spor ng ac vi es or biking,
running, or hiking to help facilitate a healthier lifestyle.
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
SUNSET PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
HIGHWOOD PARK
Population Densities
Age 45-64 (Pop/Acre)
0-2
VISTA LA MESA PARK
2-5
5-10
10-20
20+
Figure 4.8—Population Densities- 65 and Older
The 65 and over group are made up of individuals who's motor skills have started to decline. It is important to provide outdoor ac vi es to help maintain both physical and mental acuity for this group, and also opportuni es for
social interac ons. Because of decreased mobility op ons, walking access to parks for this group is also important.
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
HIGHWOOD PARK
Population Densities
Age 65+ (Pop/Acre)
0-1
VISTA LA MESA PARK
1-2
2-5
5-10
10+
FEBRUARY 2012
4-11
CITY OF LA MESA
4.3.2 Population Growth Analysis
The projected popula on of La Mesa is 65,353 people in the year 2030, which is a 13.36% increase
from the current popula on. As indicated in the previous chapter, the La Mesa General Plan indicates the overall ra o of parks should be one neighborhood park (3-7 acres) for every 5,000 residents and one community park (15-30 acres) for every 20,000 residents. Based on this criteria, the
requirements to accommodate future growth are listed below:
• Neighborhood parks required based on future popula on= 13.07
• Neighborhood Parks Currently Available= 8
• Community parks required based on future popula on=3.27
• Community parks currently available= 1
• Regional parks currently available= 1
Because La Mesa has virtually no undeveloped land le , adding significant new park land is essenally not feasible. Enhancing exis ng parks and access to those parks will be the most realis c way
to provide residents with adequate recrea onal opportuni es that a empt to achieve the goals and
objec ves of this plan.
In addi on, the exis ng and projected popula ons were broken down by the quadrants and summarized in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2—Population Analysis by Quadrant
Quadrant
2010 Popula on
2030 Popula on
Projected Percentage of Popula on Growth
Northeast
11,380
12,130
6.59%
Northwest
13,794
14,327
3.86%
Southeast
9,471
10,149
7.16%
Southwest
23,003
28,744
24.96%
57,650
65,352
13.36%
Total
Figure 4.9 indicates the general areas where future growth is likely to occur, based on the adopted
general plan and SANDAG projec ons on growth and growth distribu on.
4-12
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Figure 4.9—Future Population and Land use Growth
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
2010 Land Use
Multi-Family Residential
HIGHWOOD PARK
Single Family Residential
Population Percent Increase (2010-2030)
-100 - 0%
0 - 10%
VISTA LA MESA PARK
10 - 25%
25 - 50%
50 - 100%
100% +
·
4.3.3 Population Growth by Service Area
Using the exis ng 15-minute walk zones around each park and assuming that barriers or missing
walkways are not remedied, a summary of the popula ons served by each park is shown on Table
4.2. This table u lizes future popula on, as well as a popula on per acre calcula on, that is useful for park demand analysis. Please refer to Chapter 5 and review the maps and tables that show
the changes in the service areas if the walkway system is improved or added. These numbers and
service areas are more representa ve of the current condi ons. The table below is more accurate
in terms of current service area based on walkable condi ons, and the popula on served is understated considering the numbers of persons that may drive or walk to these parks, regardless of the
condi on or existence of walkways.
FEBRUARY 2012
4-13
CITY OF LA MESA
As indicated in the service area analysis and in the future popula on and land use growth map,
Aztec Park is currently serving the most people. Currently, the park serving the least number of
people that can walk to the park is Vista La Mesa. In addi on, Briercrest is also currently serving
a low number of people, but is projected to see the second largest popula on growth resul ng in
an increase of park users. The projected popula on growth along the University Avenue corridor
indicates that Sunshine Park will also be serving addi onal park users in the upcoming years. These
tables and maps were based on future popula on growth within the City and can help guide the
priority of future improvements and park land acquisi ons if resources become available. Please
refer to Chapter 5 for a more comprehensive comparison of exis ng and future popula on served,
given implementa on of greater walkable connec ons and barrier removals.
Table 4.3—Population Growth by Service Area Analysis- Using Existing Conditions of Walkway System
2010 Popula on
2030 Popula on
Acres
Persons per
Acre (2010)
Projected
Increase to
2030
4,860
4,937
256.54
19
1.60%
272
426
92.27
3
56.72%
2,382
2,394
141.22
17
0.51%
701
714
79.22
9
1.97%
Highwood
1,143
1,203
152.47
7
5.23%
Jackson
2,266
2,380
284.68
8
5.02%
La Mesita
1,310
1,361
137.22
10
3.91%
MacArthur
1,857
1,961
157.70
12
5.60%
Northmont
3,800
4,006
298.29
13
5.43%
Porter
2,904
3,017
216.50
13
3.89%
122
124
12.65
10
1.05%
4,189
4,386
207.44
20
4.71%
Sunshine
843
1,541
84.91
10
82.79%
Vista La Mesa
40
41
3.83
10
1.90%
Popula on within a 15-minute
walk of each park (no double
coun ng)
21,347
22,984
1,720
Popula on within City boundary
57,650
65,353
Popula on not within 15-minute walk of an exis ng park
36,303
42,369
% of popula on within
15-minute service area
37.03%
35.17%
Park
Aztec
Briercrest
Collier
Harry Griffen
Rolando
Sunset
4-14
7.67%
13.36%
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
4.4 Park Program and Facilities Analysis
Vacant land and programs were analyzed to iden fy opportuni es within the exis ng park network.
4.4.1 Vacant City-Owned Land
Currently, the number of City-owned lands are limited to four parcels (see Figure 4.10). A future
County site, referred to as the Waite property, may be available for acquisi on by the City. Given available parcels and the built out nature of La Mesa, few future park opportuni es exist.
Figure 4.10—Vacant City-Owned Lands
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Valle De Oro
HIGHWOOD PARK
Legend
City Owned Vacant Parcels
VISTA LA MESA PARK
Spring Valley
Lemon Grove
FEBRUARY 2012
4-15
CITY OF LA MESA
4.4.2 Facilities and Program Analysis
As a result of input from surveys and community workshops, the community commented on the
quality of the exis ng City parks. There were also opportuni es for the public to comment on the
quality of the individual facili es and iden fy poten al addi ons to the park, or poten al re-use or
re-design of the park. In general, comments ranged from concerns about safety, to a desire for addi onal program elements, improved or upgraded exis ng facili es, improved distribu on of park
program elements throughout the City, improved access to parks and connec vity, and an increase
in parking. Full comments are located in the appendix. In addi on to the community input, volunteers and consultants input was also compiled during fieldwork. Exis ng condi ons were compared
against na onal standards and typical city policies and guidelines and opportuni es and constraints
were evaluated.
4-16
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Chapter 5
5.0 Plan Recommendations
Plan recommenda ons in this chapter are intended to enhance access to parks and increase park
facili es within La Mesa. A secondary goal to be a ained from the recommenda ons is to promote
the City's policies promo ng posi ve health and well-being for the general public. Poten al areas
for addi onal park ameni es and poten al areas for redevelopment and redesign were iden fied
based on desired goals and input of both City staff and La Mesa residents.
5.1 Parks Master Plan
This chapter includes general recommenda ons for new parks, expansions for exis ng parks, park
program addi ons, facility addi ons, and pedestrian and bike access improvements.
5.1.1 Recommended Park Expansions
The exis ng parks within La Mesa are well distributed throughout the City. They are all filled with a
variety of program features. Some of the exis ng parks are built out, but others have the poten al
for addi onal program elements to enhance the park. There are also opportuni es for the reuse or
revitaliza on of some of the outdated or rundown exis ng features.
FEBRUARY 2012
5-1
CITY OF LA MESA
As a general recommenda on, safety issues throughout all exis ng parks should be addressed. The
City should con nue to use Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design strategies. Ligh ng
should be incorporated as necessary to increase safety within parks and might also include lighting for night me play where warranted. Ligh ng improvements have already been incorporated at
Jackson and Aztec parks, resul ng in an increased use of park facili es a er dark. The City should
con nue to make these types of improvements. Increased use from addi onal facili es is another
method of improving safety, as well as removing perceptual fear of using public spaces. The more
eyes on the park, the safer it becomes for all users. In addi on, universal access should be addressed throughout all exis ng parks. Upgrades to exis ng facili es should be completed to meet
Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code, in addi on to the Americans with Disabili es Act,
to accommodate all individuals of varying physical ability.
Quadrant Evaluation
The City is divided into quadrants to ensure that community facili es are fairly distributed among
the quadrants. The quadrants including Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast in Figure
5-1. Exis ng park land and program elements were evaluated in each of these areas. The City's
future park expansions and upgrades should be designed to fill gaps of program elements that may
exist within these quadrants, but also throughout the en re City. These gaps were discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3. Joint-use and private facili es were also considered to be recrea onal assets to a
quadrant.
All quadrants should contain a variety of types of parks with a mix of program elements that are
well distributed. At a minimum, all parks should include individual and group picnic areas, benches,
informal passive play areas, outdoor fitness equipment, a restroom, and a parking area. In addi on,
all quadrants should
provide equal opportu- Figure 5.1— City Quadrant
ni es for some larger
recrea onal program
elements such as tennis, basketball, soccer,
baseball and so ball,
barbecues, tot lots and
children's playgrounds,
walking and running
trails, and off-leash
dog areas. By including
private facili es at the
YMCA and Kroc Center,
pool facili es are well
distributed throughout
the City.
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
The City has several
adjacent golf courses
within a close proximity
and while it is an asset
to the community, a
new golf course is not
warranted within the City.
5-2
HIGHWOOD PARK
VISTA LA MESA PARK
·
City Quadrant
Northeast
Northwest
Southwest
Southeast
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Based on the current popula on of La Mesa and the Recrea on, Park, and Open Space Standards
and Guidelines defined by the Na onal Recrea on and Park Associa on, the City should consider
adding the following or crea ng a partnership with others to make these ameni es available:
• 18 Tennis courts
• 3 Baseball / So ball Fields
• 1/4 Mile running track
• 3 Trail Systems
• Updated pool facility
Based on the deficit found when comparing demand with exis ng facili es (current public, private,
and joint-use facili es), the City should consider adding the following in each quadrant:
Northwest-The City should consider adding the following to enhance the recrea onal opportuni-
es in the Northwest Quadrant. Based on community input and spa al requirements, these could
poten ally occur at the following parks:
Aztec
Jackson
Sunset
Future Public
or Joint-use
Site
Outdoor Fitness Equipment
x
x
x
x
Off-leash dog area
x
x
x
x
x
Northwest Quadrant Parks
Tennis courts
Soccer field
x
Skate park or plaza
x
x
x
Horseshoes , shuffle board, or bocce courts
x
x
x
Amphitheater
x
x
Community Center
x
x
x
Northeast-The City should consider adding the following to enhance the recrea onal opportuni-
es in the Northeast Quadrant. Based on community input and spa al requirements, these could
poten ally occur at the following parks:
Northeast Quadrant Parks
Outdoor Fitness Equipment
Basketball courts
Horseshoes , shuffle board, or bocce courts
FEBRUARY 2012
Briercrest
Harry Griffen
La Mesita
Northmont
Future Public
or Joint-use
Site
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5-3
CITY OF LA MESA
Southwest-The City should consider adding the following to enhance the recrea onal opportuni-
es in the Southwest Quadrant. Based on community input and spa al requirements, these could
poten ally occur at the following parks:
Southwest Quadrant Parks
Outdoor Fitness Equipment
Off-leash dog area
Tennis courts
Soccer field
Skate park or plaza
Horseshoes , shuffle board, or bocce courts
Amphitheater
Future Public
Vista La Mesa or Joint-use
Site
Highwood
Sunshine
Rolando
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Southeast-The City should consider adding the following to enhance the recrea onal opportuni es
in the Southeast Quadrant. Based on community input and spa al requirements, these could potenally occur at the following parks:
Southeast Quadrant Parks
Outdoor Fitness Equipment
Off-leash dog area
Updated pool facility or splash pad
Running or Walking Trail
Tennis courts
Soccer field
Skate park or plaza
Horseshoes , shuffle board, or bocce courts
Amphitheater
5-4
Collier
MacArthur
Porter
Future Public
or Joint-use
Site
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Community and Neighborhood Parks
There are a total of ten exis ng community and neighborhood parks in the City of La Mesa. Many of
these parks are built out and are unable to support addi onal program elements. Collier and Vista
La Mesa are undergoing master planning efforts and are awai ng funding for implementa on. However, due to their size and poten al to contain major recrea onal ameni es, Highwood, MacArthur,
Sunset and Harry Griffen should also go through a master planning effort to iden fy appropriate addi ons or re-uses. These parks are major assets to the community, but are under-u lized and have
the capacity for addi onal uses and facili es.
Pocket Parks
The general idea of pocket parks is to create invi ng and pedestrian-friendly outdoor spaces. Because pocket parks can be located on small, irregular, and under-u lized pieces of land, or streets
with excessive widths, the opportuni es to create new pocket parks that can help reduce park and
recrea onal deficiencies is very feasible. Pocket parks are too small for large scale physical ac vi es,
but provide a space for more passive ac vi es. Pocket parks typically include landscape, sea ng,
and smaller children's play equipment and can revolve around a monument, historic site, or art
installa on.
Designated sites for pocket parks should be considered and typical size requirements are iden fied in Chapter 2. La Mesa should evaluate the poten al for new pocket parks throughout the City
within the public right-of-way, and also con nue the use of pop-outs or extensions of sidewalks at
intersec ons to increase the pedestrian public realm. The City should encourage outdoor space in
front of private retail and dining facili es. The City should encourage the residents of La Mesa to
propose, develop, and maintain pocket parks within their neighborhoods. The placement of these
parks should assist the City in reaching the goal of a park within a 15-minute walk me of every
residen al area.
All opportuni es to include pocket parks should be reviewed and poten al project loca ons should
be selected based on the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sizeable area of under-u lized roadway
Lack of public space in the surrounding neighborhood
Pre-exis ng community support for public space at the loca on
Poten al to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety via redesign
Surrounding uses that can a ract people to the space
Iden fied community or business steward
FEBRUARY 2012
5-5
CITY OF LA MESA
Pocket Park Examples
22nd Street, San Francisco, CA
Tweet Street Park, San Diego, CA
Rincon Hill, San Francisco, CA
Guerrero Park, San Francisco, CA
Linear parks
Linear parks make use of long, narrow
strips of public land next to canals, rail
lines, streams, electrical lines, highways,
and shorelines to increase parkland and
provide recrea onal opportuni es including running, walking, and cycling. These
areas of land are typically not thought
of as usable or developable space, but
are ideal for recrea onal ac vi es that
require less space and are linear in design
or movement.
Rails to Trails: West Orange Trail, Winter Garden, FL
5-6
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
5.1.2 recommended Joint Use Agreements
Joint use agreements with school districts and private schools are cri cal to the equal distribu on
and quan ty of recrea onal facili es required to support La Mesa's popula on. These agreements
also provide children and families with safe and appealing opportuni es to encourage exercise and
healthy living habits. The exis ng agreements expand the 15 minute park service area to 4,457
more people as shown in purple in Figure 5.2 and fill a large service area gap not currently filled by
exis ng parks.
Figure 5.2—Existing Joint use Service Area
å
San Diego
å
Parkway Middle
Murray Manor Elementary LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
å
Northmont Elementary
El Cajon
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
å
Maryland Avenue Elementary
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
å
å
Lemon Avenue Elementary
Rolando Elementary
SUNSHINE PARK
ROLANDO PARK
å
La Mesa Dale Elementary
COLLIER PARK
Valle De Oro
å
La Mesa Middle
HIGHWOOD PARK
Legend
å
Joint Use Schools
City Parks
2010 Residential Land Use
VISTA LA MESA PARK
15 Min Walk Time (Park) with Improvements
Spring Valley
·
15 Min Walk Time Expansion with Joint Use School
2010 Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
Lemon Grove
FEBRUARY 2012
Non-Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
5-7
CITY OF LA MESA
The City should con nue its efforts to collaborate and maintain and expand exis ng facili es and
agreements with Grossmont Union High School and the La Mesa Spring Valley School District. In
addi on to the exis ng agreements, the City should consider pursuing addi onal agreements with
schools, non-profits, special districts, and state and regional governments. Based on the following
assets at schools, La Mesa should consider adding the following:
Project A.01—Recommended Joint Use Agreements
Quadrant
Field Loca on by
School
Type of Field
Northwest
Murray Manor
Elementary
Basketball (2 Courts)
Northeast
Grossmont High School Football Field and Track
Baseball (4 Fields)
Tennis (11 Courts)
Southwest
Helix High School
Pool
Football Field and Track
Baseball (4 Fields)
Tennis (12 Courts)
La Mesa Middle School Amphitheater
Handball (4 Courts)
Basketball (9 Courts)
La Mesa Dale
Elementary
Baseball (2 Fields)
Basketball (3 Courts)
Basketball (3 Half Courts)
Children's Play Area
Vista La Mesa
Elementary
Children's Play Area
Basketball (3 Courts)
Baseball (2 Fields)
Southeast
Lemon Avenue
Elementary
Baseball (2 Fields)
Children's Play Area
Basketball (2 Courts)
Basketball
(2 Half Courts)
5-8
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
By adding Grossmont High School, Helix High School, and Vista La Mesa Elementary to the network
of joint use schools available for public recrea on opportuni es, the service area is expanded as
shown in dark purple in Figure 5.3. These poten al agreements with schools increases the populaon served by another 1,461 people and could poten ally fill a large service area gap not currently
filled by exis ng parks.
Figure 5.3—Potential Joint use Schools Service Area
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
SUNSET PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
å
Gateway West Community Day
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Legend
å
Helix High
HIGHWOOD PARK
å
Valle De Oro
Non-Joint Use Schools
City Parks
2010 Residential Land Use
15 Min Walk Time (Park) with Improvements
VISTA LA MESA PARK Vista la Mesa Elementary
·
15 Min Walk Time Expansion with Joint Use School
å
15 Min Walk Time Expansion with Non-Joint Use Schools
Spring Valley 2010 Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
Lemon Grove
FEBRUARY 2012
Non-Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
5-9
CITY OF LA MESA
5.1.3 Proposed Park Access Improvements
Walkway / Trail Additions
There are four different types of walkway or trail improvements that can be further developed within the City of La Mesa. These types of improvements can improve access to parks and also provide
physical ac vity opportuni es directly. These walkway or trail improvements include park linkages,
neighborhood connec ons, open space links and trails, and urban trail loops.
Park Linkages
Park linkages are used to increase the number of entry ways
into a park. These facili es can include things like ramps,
stairs, or new walkways. Every park should be evaluated
individually to iden fy poten al access points including any
City right-of-way or u lity easements leading to a park. Access from residen al areas should be emphasized. Mul ple
park access points can drama cally increase the extent of
neighborhoods within a 15 minute walk. When addi onal entrances into parks are created, they should be clearly marked
throughout the neighborhood. Crime Preven on through
Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies should always be
considered for these new entrances to improve public safety
and to lower fears of u lizing addi onal entry points and linkages into these parks. Poten al linkages are iden fied in Projects B.03, B.07, B.11 and B.12. These
linkages would increase the walking and biking connec vity from adjacent neighborhoods to parks.
Addi onal studies and planning efforts will need to occur to determine the feasibility of these linkages and explore if other exis ng parks could have increased access if improved linkages and entry
points were provided.
5-10
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Neighborhood Connections
Neighborhood connec ons are routes within a neighborhood that improve walkability, accessibility,
and connec vity. These improvements focus on promo ng park usage by improving connec vity
within the 15-minute walk zone of a park. This can be accomplished by removing barriers and comple ng sidewalk connec ons and by filling in gaps of missing sidewalks. The following projects are
proposed to enhance the exis ng neighborhood connec ons (see Projects B.01 through B.14). The
projects are arranged by quadrant.
FEBRUARY 2012
5-11
CITY OF LA MESA
St
S Pierce
WM
ain S
t
S Westwind Dr
r
yD
nc
St
y
Ln
el
Blac ktho
ld
Mi
en
a
d
Lem on
in Dr
H ilme r
n
en
e
st
dt
Bl
Pl
W
tD
r
Wis
t er D
G ro
r
s sm
y
of
i ew D r
ix V
n
Bl
el
le
Dr
Hu
b
C
t
Sum m it D
r
Pl
o n t Bl
Sh a d ow Rd
i m p to n R d
W
Ba
r
nc
eA
v
jo
t
is S
Gro ssm ont
City Parks
as
Ca
Loren Dr
i
m
ko
No
St
rc
Ci
Legend
Ch
St
H
W
at
er
St
lC
aj
on
Hi
ll
E
te W y
Dr
L a S uvida D
r
Dr
D
St
D
Sever
Br
BRIERCREST PARK
cr
es
t
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
Annet
Mo
no
n
Dr
rR
er
rne Ct
El
m
bl
Urban
ie
Br
ra
d Wy
aA
v
Pine Dr
t
Jan Dr
Dr
r
St
Vis
t
Jo
ev iew
Wolf
fC
Janf re
B
dg e
ST
Po
pp
Dr
a
Am
ay
La k
e Rd
el o
He
nd
Br
oa
dm
o
er
so
or
D
n
r
Dr
Na
l Dr
How el
La
Ct
a
Dr
Rd
b ra
ho
om
La S
v
eA
l
Mu rray Dr
Pl
orn
rP
Dr
Av
c kth
r ic
Oa k
rne
Je
te
Dr
Hihill
P r im
Wy
ro
se
r
El Mio Dr
tho
dm
oo
Campi na Dr
a
D
Av
Bla
W
hi
Br
oa
Earl S
t
us
y
rra
Mu
Murray Dr
NORTHMONT PARK
Wa k
ar
G ro s m ont
s
Vie w
Northmont Elementary
Sinjon Cr
ay
Am
Dr
Dr
Crest
ha ven
uth D
r
De C
am p D
Fal mo
Sisson St
Liv e
Veemac Av
r
H aw
Fletcher Py
D
Grego ry St
r
r Dr
Parkway Middle
n
rav
St
to
or
Midway Dr
S udy
H
D
le y
la
St a n
rk P
r
za D
o
W M an
Pa
Manor Dr
Dixie Dr
e
u th
Dallas St So
Fernwood Dr
rn R
d
r
Project B.01—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Harry Griffen Park
o
Vi r g inian Ln
El
Bi
Missing Sidewalks
Fu
G
n
ra
er t
eD
it o
Barriers
Sie
r
G
r ra
Vi s
ro s a l
i a Av
ta A
v
Av
El G r anit o A v
G
r
sh
ps
Harry Griffen Park Walk Time
o
l ia
sa
Av
a Dr
Pa n d o r
Project B.01—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
5-12
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$111,750
$111,750
61,069
SF
$7
$427,483
Access Improvement Totals
$539,233
Con ngency (30%)
$161,770
Grand Total
$701,003
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Westdal e Ct
n
Ln
do
Cr
oy
t
xS
Es
se
SW
Dr
e
y
h
ro
s
W
a tc
np
Wy
Co
Hihill
r
rD
r
tt o
Crest
ha ven
D
Jim zel Rd
o
Dr
De Ca mp
Dixie Dr
n
nw
yf a
re
Pr
im
D
Dr
Fer
Wa
Kim i Ln
Fletcher Py
Sisson St
Gro s s mont
Vie w
Dr
r
Northmont Elementary
nc
yD
Veemac Av
r
Dr
Na
Murray Dr
He
nd
St
l
pp
Po
Ln
rP
ho
el
r ic
Pl
Rd
Ct
Je
te
a
dm
oo
Jo
How el
l Dr
Earl S
t
Cleburn Dr
Am
ay
Br
oa
Dr
W
hi
NORTHMONT PARK
y
Sinjon Cr
Br
oa
dm
o
er
so
or
D
n
Lubbock Av
p
Ca m Dr
Sw al
e ro R
d
East La
South Lake Ct
L ake
ke Dr
ka P
l
A p op
L ak
Falmouth Dr
s he
Th
ra
Pl
ska
e Ath
Elden St
ya
A ma
La k
ev i ew
Dr
ar
t
Janf re
ra
Mo
no
n
en
a
d
He
ss
on
m
er
tC
en
cr
es
t
Dr
St
Dr
L a S uvida D
r
te
ko
No
Missing Sidewalks
Lem on
H ilm er
rD
Loren Dr
St
in Dr
sa
BRIERCREST PARK
Northmont Park Walk Time
St
D
r
i
Br
o
Gr
City Parks
ar
u
Sever
Wa k
r
t er D
C en
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
ld
Mi
Dr
t e r Cr
C en
rR
Legend
lt h
ie
Br
a
mb
l
Urban
e Rd
B
d Wy
Wolf
fC
A lv
Campi na Dr
Wy
Dr
or
an
Asti
a do Av
Delta St
Jan Dr
h ea
ro w
Rd
Dr
to
or
r
Winfield Av
er e
i nd
e Ar
e
Grego ry St
Van Horn St
llm
Me
em
tw
H
D
ley
or D r
LA MESITA PARK
dg
Rd
St a n
W M an
Crockett St
We
Dr
Lak
Virginia
Ct
Charles Wy
od
Park Plaza Dr
St
Parkway Middle
Pampa St
ont
Manor Dr
S udy
Dallas St
Odessa Av
Rd
ta m
Al
Flume Rd
Sarit a St
nd
es
ab a
r
d Dr
v
iana A v
e Ar
L ak
Blue Lake Dr
ina
rd
Garfie ld Av
Fe
South ern Rd
st D
Cr e
A
Av
lin
ke
At
a
sL
ke
d ow
Dr
Blanchard R d
la
M ea
La
m
Ar
Lake An
ge
r Wy
Project B.02—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Northmont Park
W
at
er
St
mi
r
sS
Barriers
t
Mu rray
Dr
Project B.02—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
FEBRUARY 2012
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$221,400
$221,400
34,926
SF
$7
$244,482
Access Improvement Totals
$465,882
Con ngency (30%)
$139,765
Grand Total
$605,647
5-13
CITY OF LA MESA
r
rD
dm
oo
Earl S
t
Br
oa
l Dr
Je
Ct
Van Horn St
Nagel St
v
yA
Elden St
ay
Am
Ama
a
r ic
ho
ya D
r
Rd
La
k
e vi
ew D
r
Delta St
y
St
er
cr
e
st
H ilm er
L a Suvida D
r
Dr
ko
No
Py
sm
on
tC
en t
er D
Grossmont Summit Dr
r
c
t
r of
Dr
Wis
ps
Bi
sh
te r D
r
y
Ze
Dr
t
sS
mi
r
he
an
B
o
Fuer te
V ir g inia n Ln
Dr
s ta
Vi
aV
ista
Av
V
S un
se
t Av
Wilson St
Ct
Alt o
Dailey Ct
La
M
es
a
Bl
r
Garfield St
l l on D r
D
Glen St
D
lt o
d
A
yR
Ln
Randlett Dr
es
Tr
Da
ile
Harmo ny L n
y
Hayes St
M
ont B l
dar
Ce
aW
n
G rossm
a
ro
Wy
r
Ba
r ia
P orter H il l T
a
y
aM
n
W
Ti
e
M a rl
Briercrest ParkTi oWalk
Pl
D ie goTime
Barriers
Av
Mes
St
City Parks
MACARTHUR PARK
e ll L n
i
en
Legend
Missing Sidewalks
ov
G ra nit o
Wood St
k
Tim
t
al
le
L
Hawle y Av
sS
W o o ds A v
El
M ol l y
ule
Dr
Sierra Vista Av
Mu rra y Dr
rc
He
Dr
Loren Dr
in Dr
St
W
ta
St
He
t
Sever
sa
BRIERCREST PARK
Gr o
s
Cent er Dr
rS
D
a
a
r
i
Br
r
w
c
rk
et
Fl
on
St
i lden
te
Wa
Dr
ar
u
t
D
on
C
ay
M
M
d
St
Pa
B
y
d
e Av
le
ol
Tr
an
Urban
t e r Cr
Cen
l th
rR
an
r
ie
Br
L
kl
llm
Me
v
l
Iota P
St
Sigm a
Jack son
uc
n
D
or
Wa k
Chlo
B
ri ll o A
da
ire Av
t
J a nfr ed W y
e Rd
Ama
mb
La
Yo rksh
iS
Ta u St
Ch
Ca mp ina Dr
ar
Al v
ra
mb
l
Cl a
St
pp a
a do Av
Ka
D e rk
Dr
Midland St
NORTHMONT PARK
How el
t
ta S
Sari
Kelt
on
ks
Jac
Cla
El Paso St
LA MESITA PARK
Cleburn Dr
Lubbock Av
Av
on
Ab il e e Tr
n
Odessa Av
Dr
Project B.03—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Briercrest Park
Jefferson Av
Project B.03—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
5-14
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$32,100
$33,700
40,021
SF
$7
$280,147
Access Improvement Totals
$312,247
Con ngency (30%)
$93,674
Grand Total
$405,921
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
ke
Fletcher Py
Dr
D
Severin Dr
H
or
yS
t
to
or
n
D
r
Sisson St
Na
nc
yD
r
Veemac Av
De Ca mp
South Lake Ct
Lubbock Av
Winfield Av
Earl S
t
How el
l Dr
Sarit a St
Gr
eg
NORTHMONT PARK
Cleburn Dr
Elden St
Ama
a
ya D
r
a do Av
y
St
A
C ampina Dr
Wa
St
C la
D e rk
Dr
y
Ama
Ct
Van Horn St
Nagel St
Dixie Dr
Sw al
e ro R
d
ka P
l
A p op
L ake
Blain Pl
Av
Cam p Dr
Northmont Elementary
on
Kelt
e
Sinjon Cr
te
ar
lv
Lore
n Dr
rS
t
ra
mb
l
r
Mo
no
d
r
a
Dr
BRIERCREST PARK
na
D
t e r Cr
C en
lth
r
rD
te
n
Ce
B
Urban
rD
rR
aL
n
o
an
ie
Br
llm
Me
bd
t
ire Av
iS
Ta u S t
v
Ch
L am
an A
Missing Sidewalks
Yo rksh
Dr
D ug
so n
e Rd
La Mesita Park Walk Time
He
Jack
City Parks
Barriers
y
sW
le
Delta St
ppa
Ka
Legend
St
Laird
St
Zeta
Ch
ar
Thrasher Wy
East Lake Dr
Pl
ska
ab a
e Ath
L ak
Bl
ra
y
ur
M
v
yA
Midland St
JACKSON PARK
d
r
LA MESITA PARK
D
le y
Av
Cla
El Paso St
en R
nt R d
r Dr
Dalhart Av
o
am
o
W M an
ll o
r
A b i lene T
d
S t an
Continue
Park Plaza Dr
Am ari
Murray Manor Elementary
Odessa Av
m
La
e Av
er Lak
Bould
ak e Av
e Av
ng L
L ak
d lo
Bu
ls a
Ba
ke
Av
La
Av
Av
Dr
r Av
Pampa St
Dryd
t
ton S
r
st D
a
ia n
l Av
as
Av
tur
no
Av
ba
ke
Av
La
Al
Al
o
am
St
Parkway Middle
Crockett St
Nentra St
St
Manor Dr
S udy
Denton St
Rd
A lt
Flume Rd
Dallas St
am
South ern Rd
Cr e
v
A
Ar
ke
A ra
a go
ke
Ar
La
La
r
be
ke
ke
Al
on
ks
Blue Lake Dr
at h
Blanchard Rd
d ow
ke
La
Dr
an
in
rd
Fe
M ea
ms
el a
ke
ng
ke
v il
Am
La
La
La
k
eA
La
An
k
La
La
Av
Ln
y
oon W
v
in
Brock
Dr
A
C a lv
Ch
Ar
d
Pl
Garfield Av
ad
us
Cata ract
rsp
Withe
he
m
w
ro
wo
o
c
sh
Ar
tem
e
Ja
A
ke
r
Av
sh
La
D
lin
eA
r
Dr
e
er
At
L ak
D
e
Ar
ke
k
La
La k
e
La
e
Lake A dlo n
Dr
no
eL
ak
e
k
La
Mo
Jun
M ere Ct
Project B.04—Improved Neighborhood Connections to La Mesita Park
H ilm e r Dr
Project B.04—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
FEBRUARY 2012
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$111,050
$111,050
34,565
SF
$7
$241,953
Access Improvement Totals
$353,003
Con ngency (30%)
$105,901
Grand Total
$458,904
5-15
CITY OF LA MESA
Project B.05—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Jackson Park
l
Murray Manor Elementary
A b i len e T
r
on
Cleburn Dr
Kelt
Torrem St
Sarah Av
r St
Midland St
Elden St
Dr
JACKSON PARK
l
Delta St
a St
Dr
C la
yP
app
ne
Van Horn St
K
re
imo
Bin
Der k
od Ln
v
yA
Balt
T angle r
Sta d le
Cla
H i g h gate Ln
Nagel St
Ct
Ropalt St
Winfield Av
ue
Odessa Av
m
St
Av
Manon St
Sa
Pat St
Pampa St
Sarit a St
Av
e
Dalhart Av
Bl
ra
y
ur
M
ke
La
rr a
no
w le
Co
tr
Rainey St
Av
Bob St
Noraak
Be
r
Crockett St
llo
Am ari
St
Denton St
Nentra St
Zora St
y
o
Flume Rd
Dallas St
Alida St
MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
Dr
El Paso St
Dr
tn
re
sM
Ma l o
Bl
t
Kimberly Dr
Michelle Dr
S
Blain Pl
in
La
Blue Lake Dr
Tw
C ra r y
Continue
ke
Dr
Blue Lake Dr
y
S t
Laird St
Pl
Av
az
Ch
an
Je
eh
Te
x
ea
d
St
hi
t
St
nt
er
tC
en
te
rD
a ke
r
W
W
e ll
Jackson Park Walk Time
Aztec Dr
City Parks
St O ng
e Dr
Morro Wy
AZTEC PARK
Legend
St
Morocco Dr
Dr
on
m
r
D
Py
ay h er
w
rk le tc
F
Ce
ss
Rab St
Pa
Dr
o
Gr
uc
nd
or
t
St
B
a
kl
C
Kato St
an
e Av
y
id i
t
iS
Soper Ln
Chlo
He
nd
Bruno Pl
l
hn P
n
le
ol
Tr
We
S t Jo
t
l
Iota P
St
Sigm a
W
Anders Cr
iS
aL
Ch
llm
Me
bd
St
ire Av
Zeta
Ta u St
Pl
La m
Yo rksh
Dr
v
v
go A
et
te
so n
an A
n
Ma re
Wy
Jack
D ug
Carlette St
e P ark
La k
c
Vin
e tt a
Dr
es
le y
St
Missing Sidewalks
Se
kw
P ar
t o n HaBarriers
ll St
ay
Dr
Mu rra y Dr
Project B.05—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
5-16
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$290,500
$290,500
7,207
SF
$7
$50,449
Access Improvement Totals
$340,949
Con ngency (30%)
$102,285
Grand Total
$443,234
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
er St
Midland St
Dr
JACKSON PARK
yP
Dr
Pl
Av
Ch
az
et
te
an
ea
d
St
Je
eh
Te
x
La
k
Pawnee Dr
Bruno Pl
Lesa Rd
Maryland Av
Aztec Dr
c
Vin
St
w
rk
Pa
ay
D
r
e tt a
e Dr
Dr
le y
St
St
or e
Tufts St
nd
Fle
tch
er P
y
k
Tim
en
Dr
St
w ay
Ind u
Case St
lL
n
He
rc u
le s
St
Center Dr
Ti o
Cent er St
o l ony Dr
P or
Sp
v
Keeney St
A
MACARTHUR PARK
St
Thorne Dr
g
ri n
Mohawk St
t er Hill T r
va
Saranac Pl
Missing Sidewalks
Di eg o Pl
St
e Dr
ua
G
C
il d
Gu
Com anch
El C
ajon
Bl
Pine St
Porter Hill Rd
Kiowa Dr
Kiowa Dr
la
es
Guessm an Av
aL
B
k
uc
e Av
Commercial St
Aztec Park Walk Time
73rd St
bd
Chlo
Dr
Rab St
St
e ll
hm
t
Saranac Av
Barriers
n
a ke
W
a rt
Sw
Ha
ll S
St O ng
Morro Wy
Rd
Legend
Mohawk St
t
Jack son
Kato St
st
ri a
City Parks
l
hn P
iS
W
n
Se to
n
Park
rad o
L am
S t Jo
St
aL
Morocco Dr
AZTEC PARK
Maryland Avenue Elementary
Alva
Ch
t
id i
t
Soper Ln
S
Oakland Rd
iS
ha
st
St
ire Av
hi
He
nd
s Av
Zeta
l
Iota P
W
Anders Cr
We
Colli n
Yo rksh
Pl
St
Sigm a
ke
Bl
Ta u St
v
go A
La
y
r ra
Mu
v
n
Ma re
SUNSET PARK
e
an A
Carlette St
r k Wy
Pa
n Av
D ug
LAKE MURRAY
S t
t
Kelt o
Laird St
y
Cl a
l
A marillo Av
ne
S
pp a
re
imo
Bin
D e rk
Sa rah Av
Ln
Ma n
on
od
T angle r
S ta d l
Ka
Cowles Mtn Bl
Balt
MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
St
Project B.06—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Aztec Park
Project B.06—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
FEBRUARY 2012
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$130,850
$130,850
12,277
SF
$7
$85,941
Access Improvement Totals
$216,791
Con ngency (30%)
$65,037
Grand Total
$281,828
5-17
CITY OF LA MESA
Project B.07—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Sunset Park
o St
Manon St
Zora St
orr
a
A ven
Dr
Ct
Be
r tr
Noraak
o
Bob St
MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
Rainey St
Pat St
Sa
S t E l P as
Dr
L
a p ort
m
l
ue
St
Ropalt St
Torrem St
H ig h gat e Ln
re
imo
Ta
S ta d l e r
Sarah Av
Cowles Mtn Bl
Balt
LAKE MURRAY
d Ln
ngler o
St
Bin
Dr
Linkage from Sunset
Park to Lake Murray
could expand access
to ameni es at Lake
Murray
yP
l
Laird St
Carlette St
Av
et
te
an
He
Te
x
St
Je
y
v
go A
k
n
Ma re
SUNSET
S
SUNS
SU
UN S
PARK
e
rk W
Pa
La
eW
y
Pawnee Dr
Elain
ne
id i
St
di
Lesa Rd
Maryland Av
Tufts St
l St
Magruder St
Park
Grable St
St
70 t
h
Missing Sidewalks
Barriers
Guessman Av
Mary Fellows Av
Ka
Aztec Dr
Kiowa Dr
l
yB
ke
La
Park Walk Time
al
Baldrich St
o
A lv
ara Sunset
d
R
d
nH
St
City Parks
S e to
Dr
re St
Legend
Av
Vin c e t ta
le y
in
mo
ns
Morro Wy
es
Maryland Avenue Elementary
Macquarie St
el l
W is
co
h
art
r ra
Melody Ln
W
Av
Av
Mu
Oakland Rd
Morocco Dr
AZTEC PARK
Sw
na
ic u t
o
Mcrae Av
Pennsylvania Ln
Oh io Av
n ne c t
ri z
n
Co
A
v
ado A
st
aL
C olor
Soper Ln
S
ha
Av
to
s Av
on
ing A v
Wyo m
St
Bruno Pl
Colli n
St
Av
re
en
W
wa
O reg
la
De
Kiowa Dr
Anders Cr
Alva
rad o
Fle
w ay
tch
er P
y
Dr
Rd
C om
m ercial St
Project B.07—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
5-18
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$40,700
$40,700
30,595
SF
$7
$214,162
Access Improvement Totals
$254,862
Con ngency (30%)
$76,458
Grand Total
$331,320
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
73rd St
Vassar Av
Cornell Av
Lowell Ct
Princeton Av
West Point Av
Pomona
Harvard Av
71st St
Gordon Wy
Av
O xf
Neri Dr
on
l
rie
Mu
v
ue A
H
Paula St
Charles St
Marian St
69th St
King St
s Av
Stuart Av
a
rm
lA
v
Sono Pl
Pl
tt
se
Donna Av
No
ro
Ou
hu
Dr
Wy
l ta
Rolando Bl
A
r
D
t
nS
Pl
Dr
ac
sita
a
de
Le e
ia
Viv
Barriers
a
Ca
n
ra
is
t
m
Lo
G
V
dy
Miss y Ct
Dr
Ma s s
a
Dr
Missing Sidewalks
Ju
li a
Hybeth
Violet St
il lo
Sunshine Park Walk Time
Ce
ar d Dr
Harvala St
t
y Av
Blackton Dr
B on
Vi s
Pl
Helix High
Boulev
City Parks
ers it
Lois
St
Univ
Legend
Av
t
r
lm D
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
ss
ll S
o
Ma lc
ge
we
ar
bi
Purd
ur
St
Lo
St
ns
Vigo Dr
Annapolis Av
Gordon Ct
o r d St
Elma Ln
nW
y
i da D r
a Dr
Berkeley Dr
v
A rag o
L er
K
L
eA
ri d
o
nd
68th
Le
la
Ro
ROLANDO PARK
y
M ar
Dr
Dr
iv
Ol
W
co
ra
ll s
no
Vetter Pl
Al
Av
Stanford Av
Estelle St
Ma r
ra
co
o well St
Alamo Wy
Yale Av
Bradfo r d S
t
Kemper St
Pa
D
a m o Ct
vi llo D
r
a
tr i
Pl
Cornell Av
r
Bruce Ct
Re
O l i ve
Parks Av
Pom ona Wy
Seneca Pl
Munroe St
e
Ka th
Culbertson Av
Toni Ln
Camellia Dr
Olive Av
o Dr
E ucal
ill
yp t u s H
Seneca Pl
SUNSHINE PARK
Normandie Pl
y
l ed
c ia Dr
Terry Ln
To
Acorn St
en
68th St
V
Virginia Av
r
Judson Wy
oD
i ll o W
R ev
al
Santa Maria Dr
e
Rolando Elementary
Camellia Dr
M a t a ro D
r
Ohio Pl
Pl
Tower St
ri n
Solita Av
Dauer Av
67th St
Aragon Dr
Adams Av
Dana Dr
Century St
am
Al
Catherine Av
Colony Rd
Rosefield Dr
Lenore Dr
in
m
Valencia Dr
Rolando Bl
o le
Filipo St
Dr
El
St
Stanley Av
La Mesita Pl
Jessie Av
Art
Solita Av
Juliette Pl
Normandie Pl
Rosefield Dr
71st St
n on Av
70th St
an
68th St
l
B
on
Sh
l
Watson Wy
E l C ajo n B l
Zelda Av
aj
oP
C
n
rr a
Benton Wy
Dr
71st St
St
Eberhart St
Se
Se
Amherst St
Normandie Pl
Amherst St
69th Pl
Bl
73rd St
Ct
go n
rs
t
j on
7 2nd St
ndo
Ara
Am
he
Ca
70th St
Rola
El
68th St
Project B.08—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Sunshine Park
Apore St
ie
Or
n
Av
P h oe n i x D
r
Project B.08—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
FEBRUARY 2012
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$139,950
$139,950
284,320
SF
$7
$1,990,240
Access Improvement Totals
$2,130,190
Con ngency (30%)
$639,057
Grand Total
$2,769,247
5-19
CITY OF LA MESA
Project B.09—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Rolando Park
71st St
Camellia Dr
c i a Dr
o Dr
SUNSHINE PARK
K at h e
Cornell Av
Cornell Av
Princeton Av
r
Bruce Ct
Camellia Dr
Vassar Av
Normandie Pl
Wy
le d
Acorn St
en
Terry Ln
i l lo
To
68th St
Judson Wy
V
Virginia Av
r
Catherine Av
oD
R ev
al
M ata r o D
r
Toni Ln
am
Al
Stanley Av
Santa Maria Dr
Pl
Rolando Elementary
73rd St
Tower St
e
Solita Av
rin
67th St
Aragon Dr
Adams Av
Dauer Av
Century St
Lenore Dr
Valencia Dr
Filipo St
r
eD
ol
in
Se
m
St
Rolando Bl
El
Art
Solita Av
Rosefield Dr
Rosefield Dr
Dana Dr
n on Av
Juliette Pl
Colony Rd
Normandie Pl
an
71st St
l
68th St
oP
Eberhart St
C
n
rr a
t
Zelda Av
aj
t
on
B
S
rt
l
A
Se
Sh
h e r st S
Benton Wy
Am
D
Alamo Wy
West Point Av
Stanford Av
Vigo Dr
O xf
Av
Pomona
71st St
Av
Dr
Blackton Dr
ch u s
M a ss a
Paula St
Violet St
Marian St
Donna Av
King St
Bing St
V i s ta
kt
c
St
li a
Stuart Av
B la
Ho p e
Ce
Sono Pl
Pl
ro
Ou
Charles St
Wy
t
nS
St
Dr
Helix High
Miss y Ct
Dr
lta
Rolando Bl
sita
r
aA
D
m
de
ia
Viv
Missing Sidewalks
Jeff
Lo
n
ra
yL
ee Pl
Rolando Park Walk Time
Hybeth
Ca
G
J ud
ar d Dr
Boulev
Harvala St
ta
City Parks
Lois
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
y Av
69th St
ers it
Vi
s
Legend
etts A
v
H
v
ue A
St
r
lm D
Univ
Barriers
Purd
ar
bi
a
o
Ma lc
on
a Dr
n
o rd St
Elma Ln
nW
y
id a D r
Dr
id
Neri Dr
ns
M ar
Le r
Arag o
Berkeley Dr
Annapolis Av
Gordon Ct
70th St
go
ll s D r
St
T arr a
o
Kn
68th
L er
do
la n
Ro
ROLANDO PARK
y
L og
Dr
co
ra
Gordon Wy
o
Dr
r o no
ra
c
W
lo
nil
Dr
Bo
M ar
Vetter Pl
Al
Estelle St
Harvard Av
r ia
Yale Av
Pa t
Kemper St
vi llo D
r
a m o Ct
Re
Bradfor d S t
on
Dr
Orien Av
Hoffman Av
VISTA LA MESA PARK
Butler Pl
Project B.09—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
5-20
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000
118,157
SF
$7
$827,099
Access Improvement Totals
$857,099
Con ngency (30%)
$257,130
Grand Total
$1,114,229
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
t
S
Donna Av
L ow
Av
Av
Pomona
Harvard Av
Yale Av
Kemper St
tl e
at
Se
Charles St
Capitol St
Harris St
Bass St
Carancho St
Citrus St
Massachusetts Av
Jill Ln
Vista Av
Paula St
Violet St
Shirlene Pl
Casita Wy
cr
am
oD
r
en t o Dr
gh
Hi
St
n
St
Corona St
West St
sto
North Av
Buena Vista Av
ing
Vista Av
Liv
Harris St
69th St
Dr
North Av
Citrus St
Vista Grande Dr
Loma Alta Dr
69th St
King St
Corona St
King St
Marian St
Hope St
Racine Rd
Dr
Meridian Av
ve
ro
Dr
Sparling St
G
au
Her s h
Sa
d
North Av
ss
e
Lime St
ge Dr
C hi ca g
Hill R
Dr
Na
g
ll e
Pearson St
Carmenita Rd
st r
id
Duchess St
d
Co
Ea
Mu rray
Dr
o lk
S u ff
go n
Ha
Vista La Mesa Barriers
Waite Dr
Rockland St
e Rd
c in
ara n
O c e a n V ie w W y
Vista la Mesa Elementary
Ara
a Dr
Dr
Pearson St
Waite Dr
Av
n
ie
Or
r
P h oe n i x D
Apore St
on
VISTA LA MESA PARK
Ver on ica Av
Av
L em
Hoffman Av
Marlowe Dr
Ra
eg e
kt
Dr
69th St
Donna Av
Rolando Bl
Stuart Av
Pl
c
t
nS
t
an S
s St
Coll
City Parks
Sono Pl
ro
Ou
Hannibal Pl
Bil lm
Brem
t
ew
Dr
B la
ia
Viv
St
Missing Sidewalks
St
Blackton Dr
Dr
e Pl
Av
Vista
La Mesa Park Walk Time
e y St
st
y
so n
Ha
r d St
Ox f
o
Lois
St
il lo
Le
Z en
St
Legend
a
rbin
71st St
St
h
Alam o Dr
on
B on
Ju
dy
Newsome Dr
S tre
Vetter Pl
n
mo
nW
y
Elma Ln
Gordon Wy
Dr
i ll o
R ev
L er
r
iL
Helix High
Miss y Ct
Celia Vista Dr
i
mv
y Av
ar d Dr
Hybeth
Bing
ue S
ers it
Harvala St
St
re n
Av
t
Univ
Boulev
Butler Pl
Bo
ss
ll S
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
Pe
r iq
v
ue A
r
lm D
Jeff
ge
we
Purd
ur
St
v
Vigo Dr
Neri Dr
l
Lo
ri
d a Dr
Berkeley Dr
Annapolis Av
Gordon Ct
el
eA
A rag o
g
o
Ma lc
K
Dr
iv
Ol
ra
do
la n
Ro
ll s
no
70th St
aD
t
68
St
T ar
n
68th
Le
To
ROLANDO PARK
i da D r
M ar
Dr
Dr
ro
y
W
co
ra
ta
Ma r
ra
co
Stanford Av
A la
Ma
Estelle St
Olive Av
C
Project B.10—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Vista La Mesa Park
Broadway
Project B.10—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
FEBRUARY 2012
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$52,700
$52,700
199,960
SF
$7
$1,399,720
Access Improvement Totals
$1,452,420
Con ngency (30%)
$435,726
Grand Total
$1,888,146
5-21
CITY OF LA MESA
wD
r
Lee Av
Troy Ln
vie
We
st
Culbertson Av
Olive Av
o well St
Av
it D r
Dr
mm
on
ld
Su
Parks Av
Munroe St
ar
Dr
T o pa
h
Dr
l
Va
Dr
l ley V ie
P ark
wC
r
n
te
e
ly
r
St
rr i e t
EA
G
n Dr
roly
D
r
Co
Cost a Be
d
Ti e
rr
Hill R
t
aR
Gr ove St
d
R i vi e
d
n Av
Dr
i ca
er
Q
xt
Am
C
R
ua
r
ry
t
er
hS
Kane Dr
r
to D
Sa
c r a m en
s i de Rd
ll
Hig
Missing Sidewalks
at
e
De
Dr
Hi
o
go
w
ad o
C ar b
ca
Sh
lla Wy
Mu rray
C hi
t
Denv er Dr
Wy
Highwood Park Walk Time
v
dA
w
a t t le D r
gh
Poten
al Park Entry
Se
Hi
Where Access to the Eastridge Dr
Park Could be Improved
City Parks
R os
ari
ta
oo
Dr
Brook e Ct
Av
Cr
Dr
a
n
Cin t h ia S
Ln
Rockledg e Rd
gs
W e th
Tu
n
v
nA
Ga te si
d e Rd
ig
B
r
ra D
a
ro
dw
ay
r w ay Dr
t
rH
Ct
F ai
ll S
o
ni
L ava
t Dr
Hur
Dr
ey
we
ie
Or
ie
Or
Legend
Barriers
v
nA
C o bal
ie
Or
Av
t
zC
v
al
R oj o
73rd St
Pl
Pomona
r
Dr
Harvard Av
COLLIER PARK
ab
Av
eA
rm
La Mesa Middle HIGHWOOD PARK
P h oe n i x
Harris St
ll e
nn
Ci
s
rk
Yale Av
St
Dr
Va
ve
Dr
he
D
n
S
Be
rl y
r Dr
o
Av
n
iv
Ol
Lo
No
Ju
Apore St
Capitol St
t
bo
g
ri n
Ne
Sp
Fresno Av
v
so
Wind
Pa
Pl
Poten al linkage
age to
Sono Pl
Helix Charterr High
Pl
ro
School
Ou
Pearson St
Av
La Mesa Dale Elementary
l
rie
Mu
iew
aA
Av
Helix High
Oc e a n V
Av
le
Av
le
ss
sa
de
l ey
Pasadena Av
dL
ge
Fin
na
Av
Vi s
ta
Dr
bu
ur
St
v
p
Ma
Av
Pa
se
U
it y
rs
ve
ni
Ro
Stan ford Av
L
Da
West Point Av
Gr
St
nA
aci
Lowell Ct
v
e
ap
mo
Ac
Princeto n A
Le
Av
n
v
C ornell A v
vi e w
aL
eA
V assar Av
F air
hS
ri n
e
on C r
t
m
04t
Le
t
Le
Seneca Pl
eS
Alt
inc
Qu
dS
Homewood Pl
m
Av
O l i ve
Pom ona Wy
Seneca Pl
Ci
l
lm
Pl
aB
03r
ill
s
Me
La
Pa
ly pt u s H
Ln
on
Av
te
K ath e
E uc a
a rr
Da
Jessie Av
Santa Maria Dr
Maple Av
Project B.11—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Highwood Park
Project B.11—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
5-22
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$133,150
$133,150
101,049
SF
$7
$707,343
Access Improvement Totals
$840,493
Con ngency (30%)
$252,148
Grand Total
$1,092,641
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Project B.12—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Collier Park
A
Glen St
Ln
G
e
Ln
el
l
B
e
Merritt Bl
l
Echo Ct
ow
t er
r
Ln
te
n
Rockle d ge
gs
Tu
n
Park
E A rri e
Porter Rd
Cr
Rd
y V ie w
G a te s
i de
Dr
Sr
Rd
-12
5S
t
bO
ff R
a
ce
Dr
Ln
po R
d
r
sD
Spri
rd
i
e
Dr
Ne
ng P
l
S pr
ing
Bi
C am
wP
l
lar
i
Dr
rd
n v ie
b Pl
Po
dw
bi
er
B
ro
a
Barriers
Th
d
un
ay
d
R
Q
irw
t
ay
hS
Fa
Dr
Hig
Missing Sidewalks
De
Collier Park Walk Time
Gr e e
Country C l
u
Spri
K e nw o
ll
r
i
wH
xte
ado
ng D
r
Dr
od
r
rD
eD
r
dg
Sh
Brook e Ct
te
Mo n
City Parks
tri
y
s
Ea
ua
rr
w
D
Co
r o ly
Terr a
Dr
n Dr
Echo Dr
Cr
t a Dr
ll e
ta
R os
a ri
B
Rd
Rd
ly S
t
io
n
is
s
Scenic Ln
Glenira Wy
Dr
Va
Dr
C i nt h ia S
er
Dr
Po
n
Mt
ar
v
dA
Legend
oo
W e th
n
ck
Dr
HIGHWOOD PARK
e
re
Bla
y
n ab
Cin
rl e
La Mesa Middle
gh
Hi
Ct
L ava
t
G
Dr
Av
Hu
z Ct
s
rk
n
h
Dr
Echo Dr
g
in
a no
eS
Pa
Ju
r
io
g
Hi
Poten T oal Park Entry
pa
Where Access to the
Park Could be Improved
v
nA
C o balt
n
ie
Or
C
Joris Wy
land
Dr
dL
Av
Fabienne Wy
d
Woo
r
n
bu
al
Mariposa St
Panorama Dr
COLLIER
EUCALYPTUS COUNTY PARK
Bellflower Dr
Carlin Pl
Upland St
it D r
Dr
mm
on
lle
Dr
Su
Va
Be
ve
D
ld
M
Miram onte St
wD
r
Edenvale Av
Tulare St
r ly
o
Av
se
rm
Ln
A lpin
Dr
Av
le
Av
le
Ro
No
Garfield Ln
bo
de
p
Ma
Da
e
Sh
e Av
Fresno Av
Pasadena Av
r Dr
A l p in
Highfield Av
ne
yl i
Av
na
Av
V is
ta
Dr
so
Wind
v
Sk
t
vie
Sunris e Av
hS
t
l ey
Ne
We
st
Su
nr
Ln
e
04t
dS
Av
St
v
Pa
sa
is
ra A
Butte St
Fin
v
n
eA
p
aA
aL
Le
a
Gr
t
eS
mo
Av
te
w Av
g
ri n
i r vi e
Da
Fa
03r
lm
Sp
Le
o n Cr
t
Su
Av
r
rD
Dr
Garfield St
l
rP
se
s
nr i
Av
l
er
Lee Av
Ch
a
B o uld e
i
v
Ol i
aB
v
nA
aci
in
Qu
S
ce
Alt
iv
Le
m
v
yA
L
es
aM
Ln
Ac
Un
s it
er
g
v
eA
Pa
an
Or
m
Ci
Chev
y
l en
Suncrest Dr
a
Johnson Dr
v
Boul de
Allison Av
Carter Pl
n
r ro
Lemon Avenue Elementary
est
Av
Grant
H il lcr
Dr
University Pl
Pine St
Date Av
Maple Av
a
Dr
a V is
t
bo
Lom
Ne
Culowee St
Cypress St
MACARTHUR PARK
Dr
Palm Av
Sunset
Dr
re is
Project B.12—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
FEBRUARY 2012
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$269,050
$269,050
161,223
SF
$7
$1,128,561
Access Improvement Totals
$1,397,611
Con ngency (30%)
$419,283
Grand Total
$1,816,894
5-23
CITY OF LA MESA
Project B.13—Improved Neighborhood Connections to Porter Park
le s
St
Dailey Ct
Garfield St
Wood St
Linden Wy
Glen St
rD
r
se
Av
rP
l
B oul d e
Ln
d
Pine St
Cypress St
Palm Av
Randlett Dr
Porter Hill Rd
Mills St
Edenvale Av
Alpi ne Av
Miram onte St
Butte St
te
v
Joris Wy
Scenic Ln
Upland St
v
Dr
A
Mariposa St
Panorama Dr
r
Da
Carlin Pl
Date Av
Dr
Highfield Av
Av
Merr itt Bl
COLLIER PARK
Dr
on
i ra
Ln
rl
y
Va
ll e
ld
G
l
ne
yl i
wD
r
p
ie
gf
ri n
Sk
vie
i
le n
We
st
r
Clearview Wy
Ln
nD
Lee Av
Harm o n y
so
r
s io n Bell Ln
t
Be
ve
he
Johnson Dr
Alpin A
e
r
D
S
n
r
r
Lemon Av
Lemon Avenue Elementary
Fresno Av
Pasadena Av
o
Av
Barriers
a
m
hS
Av
le
v
lA
Moisan Wy
Tulare St
Porter Park Walk Time
Missing SidewalksWindsor D
No
tD
r
v
nA
Garfield Ln
Av
ta
D
eD
S
Av
t
gS
ri n
Dr
bo
Vis
m
p
Ma
City Parks
de
na
Ne
Su
mi
sa
ey
inl
Sp
v
St
G
Legend
v
n
eA
pe
Pa
F
aA
aL
Le
ra
aci
Alt
Av
Ma
o
dis
Mi s
04t
vi e w
as
Sunri se Av
v
Ln
F a ir
tA
er
t
on C r
Su nr
Av
te
m
Ac
in
Qu
t
Da
Le
S
ce
Ch
Bould e
es
lc r
v
Ol i
dS
Av
03r
lm
m
n
Chev
y
Hil
Pa
Ci
o
ar r
Ln
o
rs
ck
n
Dr
L
Wy
s en
L ar
rL
bo
g
J
Rd
Gateway West Community Day
de
Ne
an
Or
Bl
Av
fe
ef
Ja
w
ro
r
Suncrest Dr
a
es
aM
Av
ile
y
Av
Grant
Allison Av
v
eA
on
Da
y
PORTER PARK
Pine Ct
aW
y Av
C
nD
Culowee St
University Pl
ers it
t on
Schuyler Av
it a
Univ
ing
gt
St
l Dr
or ia
ap
Orchard Av
sh
Wa
hi n
Hayes St
Av
n
Gl e
e
m
Dr
El C
M
bo
r
Bl
ajon
El C
Hillside Dr
Ne
eD
or
lt i m
a Av
Ba
v
Gu a
C olin a Dr
ro
r
dg e D
s
Wa
Victory Rd
MACARTHUR PARK
Ba
y
He
Wy
P orter Hi ll T
r
n
n
W
se
Ro
r ia
St
Cent er St
M arl e
il d
Gu
o Pl
T io Dieg
Ti
aM
a
n
n
Commercial St
Wilson St
G ro s s m o n t B l
Glen St
lL
rc u
Center Dr
Ind u
Case St
st
ria
He
Wood St
y
Bellflower Dr
er P
Randlett Dr
tch
St
Fle
en
Dr
k
Tim
P ark w ay
Project B.13—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
5-24
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$378,100
$378,100
220,577
SF
$7
$1,544,039
Access Improvement Totals
$1,922,139
Con ngency (30%)
$576,642
Grand Total
$2,498,781
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Project B.14—Improved Neighborhood Connections to MacArthur Park
y
Hawle y Av
St
G ro s s mo nt B
l
Glen St
rD
r
v
se
dA
rP
l
Edenvale Av
Miram onte St
Dailey Ct
Wood St
Linden Wy
Garfield Ln
Butte St
v
Tulare St
COLLIER PARK
Dr
Dr
Carlin Pl
er l
y
Upland St
v
Pasadena Av
on D
r
el d
Sh
Ln
Cypress St
Palm Av
B oul d e
v
lA
wD
r
rm a
Alpi ne Av
Ln
vie
Highfield Av
Av
ne
yl i
We
st
Glen St
Randlett Dr
Porter Hill Rd
Mills St
Date Av
Pine St
Clearview Wy
Ln
ir
a
l
Sk
No
Harm o n y
r
G
le n
ie
gf
in
pr
A lpin A
e
Dr
B ev
l le
Johnson Dr
s io n Bell Ln
t
Dr
r Dr
Lemon Av
St
tD
Lemon Avenue Elementary
Mi s
hS
bo
ta
Moisan Wy
Fresno Av
g
ri n
aA
Va
so
Wind
Ne
Av
le
Missing Sidewalks
en
Vis
Av
r
i
S
Av
r
p
Ma
um
mi
sa
d
l ey
Sp
S
v
Macarthur Park Walk Time
Fin
aA
Pa
Gr
City
Parks
Barriers
aci
t
n
v
eS
aL
eA
ap
w Av
Alt
Le
Legend
vi e
v
04t
F air
Ma
on
dis
nD
n
Ln
t
on Cr
eD
Sunri se Av
Av
te
m
t
Ac
eS
Da
Le
inc
Qu
Sun r
tA
er
dS
Av
03r
lm
a
Ln
yC
ha
s
Bould e
es
lc r
v
Ol i
Pa
m
Ci
n
rro
C h ev
Hil
L
e
aM
se
L ar
y
nW
rL
Dr
a
Or
Av
Gateway West Community Day
de
bo
Suncrest Dr
e
ng
Rd
so
w
ro
Ne
Allison Av
l
o
ile
y
Av
Grant
Carter Pl
B
sa
rs
ffe
ck
C
r
Pine Ct
Av
Je
Ja
PORTER PARK
Av
Av
Schuyler Av
a l Dr
nD
Culowee St
University Pl
rs it y
t on
on
St
o ri
Dr
it a
e
Univ
ing
gt
Da
Wy
m
bo
ap
Orchard Av
a
e
sh
Wa
hi n
Hayes St
Av
n
Gl e
Ne
r
El C
M
C o lina Dr
eD
or
lt im
a Av
Ba
v
Gu a
Bl
ajon
El C
Hillside Dr
ro
y
Dr
s
Wa
Victory Rd
MACARTHUR PARK
Ba
W
dg e
P orter H ill T
r
He
Wy
Cent er St
n
n
e
se
Ro
a
r ia
St
o Pl
Ti
aM
M arl
il d
Gu
Ti o D ieg
Wilson St
n
Commercial St
Garfield St
lL
St
Center Dr
st
ri a
H
le s
Wood St
en
Ind u
Case St
u
erc
n
er P
Panorama Dr
tch
Scenic Ln
Fle
Bellflower Dr
Dr
Randlett Dr
w ay
k
Tim
k
P ar
Mariposa St
Project B.14—Estimate
Issue
Remove and Fix Barriers
Install Sidewalks
FEBRUARY 2012
Quan ty
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
LS
$279,550
$279,550
156,374
SF
$7
$1,094,618
Access Improvement Totals
$1,374,168
Con ngency (30%)
$412,250
Grand Total
$1,786,418
5-25
CITY OF LA MESA
Service Area Expansion
By incorpora ng all these improved neighborhood connec ons to individual parks, including installing sidewalks and removing barriers, the service areas to parks based on a 15-minute walk me will
be expanded (see Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4—Service Area Expanded with Improvements
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Valle De Oro
HIGHWOOD PARK
Legend
·
City Parks
2010 Residential Land Use within 15 min Walk Time
VISTA LA MESA PARK
Non-Residential Land Use within 15 Min Walk Time
Spring Valley
Lemon Grove
5-26
2010 Residential Land Use Outside 15 min Walk Time
Non-Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
These improved neighborhood connec ons and access points increase the number of people
served at each park. A comparison of the exis ng service area and the improved service area is
shown in Figure 5.5. The increased service area is represented in purple. In some cases, these walkable service areas increase drama cally because of walkway improvements near the parks that
prevent most all in the normal service area from walking, or they provide alterna ve routes that
decrease the overall distance to the parks that the user previously had to u lize out of direc on
routes for a connected walkway system.
Figure 5.5—Comparison of Existing and Improved Service Area
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Valle De Oro
HIGHWOOD PARK
Legend
·
City Parks
2010 Residential Land Use
VISTA LA MESA PARK
15 Min Walk Time with Existing Conditions
Spring Valley
15 Min Walk Time with Improvements
2010 Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
Lemon Grove
FEBRUARY 2012
Non-Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
5-27
CITY OF LA MESA
Using each improved 15-minute walk zone around each park and assuming all barriers and gaps in the walkway network were fixed, a summary of the popula ons served by each park was summarized in Table 5.1. This table u lizes
future popula on, as well as a popula on per acre calcula on, that is useful for park demand analysis.
Table 5.1—Population Growth by Service Area Analysis- Based on Improved Access Conditions
Based on Existing Disjointed Walkways
Park
2010
2030
Acres
Popula on Popula on
Persons Projected
per Acre Increase
(2010)
to 2030
Based on Improved Walkway Conditions
% Change
2010
Popula on
2030
Popula on
Acres
(between
unimproved &
improved for
2030)
4,860
4,937
256.54
19
1.60%
6,728
6,887
383.11
39.50%
272
426
92.27
3
56.72%
608
851
189.43
99.77.%
2,382
2,394
141.22
17
0.51%
4,970
5,144
434.47
114.87.%
701
714
79.22
9
1.97%
2,223
2,263
304.78
216.94%
Highwood
1,143
1,203
152.47
7
5.24%
4,451
4,609
381.45
283.13%
Jackson
2,266
2,380
284.68
8
5.02%
4,328
4,559
423.83
97.53%
La Mesita
1,310
1,361
137.22
10
3.91%
1,691
1,770
202.43
30.05%
MacArthur
1,857
1,961
157.70
12
5.60%
3,856
4,036
327.97
105.81%
Northmont
3,800
4,006
298.29
13
5.43%
4,298
4,523
360.22
12.91%
Porter
2,904
3,017
216.50
13
3.89%
5,727
5,948
463.55
97.15%
122
124
12.65
10
1.05%
1,651
2,375
146.89
1,815.32%
4,189
4,386
207.44
20
4.71%
4,427
4,636
221.02
5.70%
Sunshine
843
1,541
84.91
10
82.79%
4,157
4,999
351.93
224.40%
Vista La Mesa
40
41
3.83
10
1.90%
3,223
4,367
263.17
10,551.22%
Popula on
within 15 minute walk of each
park (no double
coun ng)
21,347
22,984
1,721
7.67%
38,522
41,267
3,347
79.55%
Popula on
within City
Boundary
57,650
65,353
13.36%
57,650
65,353
Popula on not
within 15 minute walk of an
exis ng park
36,303
42,369
19,128
24,086
% of populaon within 15
minute service
area
37.03%
35.17%
66.82%
63.14%
Aztec
Briercrest
Collier
Harry Griffen
Rolando
Sunset
With barrier removals, walkway addi ons and new access points added, the popula on being served within a 15
minute walk me, is substan ally improved. A comparison of Table 5.1 to Table 4.2-Popula on served with the exis ng
network found in Chapter 4 shows significant changes. Just by fixing the walkway network and filling in gap and removing barriers, an addi onal 17,175 people or an addi onal 80.46% would be within a 15 minute walking distance of a
park based on the current City's popula on. The number of acres served also go from 1,721 to 3,347.
5-28
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Open Space Links and Trails
Open space links and trails are routes within or leading up to an open space. They are typically used
for exploring flora and fauna and can also be used for exercise. It is important to designate trails and
linkages within open space areas in such a way to limit impact on habitats and natural areas. There
are limited opportuni es within the City of La Mesa to develop these types of trails because open
space is limited and is either privately owned or has been protected under regional and local efforts
as part of the Mul ple Species Conserva on Plan (see Figure 5.6). Many of the open space areas
shown are designated open space, but were set aside as part of private developments without an
intent to allow the public to u lize these areas. They are o en small and do not connect with other
open space areas. One opportunity may exist, however. The City is adjacent to Mission Trails Regional Park and Lake Murray, and residents have easy access to open space facili es within a short
walk, bike, or car ride.
Recrea onal opportuni es at Lake Murray
and Mission Trails Regional Park
FEBRUARY 2012
5-29
CITY OF LA MESA
Figure 5.6—Open Space Land Use
Connec ons to Mission Trails Park and its various open space resources, could be
improved along the edge of La Mesa.
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Legend
HIGHWOOD PARK
Valle De Oro
Public Open Space / Maybe Available for Public Trail
Public Open Space / Dedicated Habitat - no public access
Open Space - no public access
City of La Mesa
VISTA LA MESA PARK
City Parks
Spring Valley
Lemon Grove
5-30
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Urban Trail Loops
Urban trail loops are marked routes that are used to connect des na ons or provide a start and end
loop system for walking or running. They are used to promote exercise by providing a marked route
with marked distances. Three urban trail loops already exist within La Mesa. Addi onal loops are
suggested to increase accessibility to parks and incorporate an urban loop within every quadrant of
the City (see Project C.01 through C.06 and Figure 5.5). The proposed new loops are ed to significant public des na ons and places that provide addi onal outdoor recrea onal opportuni es,
including parks, hospitals, the civic center and the downtown area, historical places, art, and private
recrea on facili es.
When an urban trail loop is along a street, complete streets concepts should be incorporated. All
users of the roadway, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with
disabili es, and users of public transporta on should be accommodated within the sec on of the
street. In addi on, a theme should be ed to each loop to make them iden fiable and unique. Each
theme could be incorporated into the wayfinding signage, distance markers, plant material, artwork, sea ng, ligh ng, hardscape, and any other special ameni es along the route.
The routes should also include distance
and direc onal markers at every quarter mile. The City should also consider
publishing these routes on their website
so they are easily accessible. Addi onal
informa on on complete streets can
be found in the City of La Mesa Bicycle
FaciliƟes and AlternaƟve TransportaƟon
Plan.
Addi onally, street trees should be
incorporated into the loops to enhance
visual quality, improve the pedestrian
experience , increase pedestrian safety,
influence traffic speeds, further efforts
with greenhouse gas reduc on (carbon
sequestra on), reduce urban heat island effects through shading, and to decrease water quan ty
runoff and water quality improvements. This would be consistent with goals in the La Mesa Downtown Village Specific Plan for crea ng urban forests and increasing the number of trees in the City.
FEBRUARY 2012
5-31
CITY OF LA MESA
Project C.01—Urban Trail Loop- Northeast Quadrant 1
El Cajon
D
San Diego
T HE
SO U
RN
R
DALLAS S T
GREGORY ST
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
ER
1.841 mile loop
PY
R
A M A YA D
SEV
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
ER IN
FL
CH
ET
W
DR
ER
AT
ST
LE M ON
ST
BRIERCREST PARK
GR
M UR
OS
SM
NT
CE
NT
ER
R A Y DR
DR
N
C
RO
FT
DR
FU
ER
TE
DR
B
A
O
Legend
Valle De Oro
1,180 Feet
ME
SM
LA
S O N DR
5-32
SA
CK
BL
JA
0 295 590
G RO S
ON
T BL
La Mesa Boundary
City Parks
landmarks
Northeast Quadrant 1
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Project C.02—Urban Trail Loop- Northeast Quadrant 2
El Cajon
D
San Diego
T HE
SO U
RN
R
DALLAS S T
GREGORY ST
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
ER
PY
R
A M A YA D
SEV
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
ER IN
FL
CH
ET
2.035 mile loop
W
DR
ER
AT
ST
LE M ON
ST
BRIERCREST PARK
GR
M UR
OS
SM
NT
CE
NT
ER
R A Y DR
DR
N
C
RO
FT
DR
FU
ER
TE
DR
B
A
O
Legend
Valle De Oro
1,180 Feet
FEBRUARY 2012
ME
SM
LA
S O N DR
SA
CK
BL
JA
0 295 590
G RO S
ON
T BL
La Mesa Boundary
City Parks
landmarks
Northeast Quadrant 2
5-33
CITY OF LA MESA
Project C.03—Urban Trail Loop- Southwest Quadrant
COLONY RD
HA
RB
I NS
7 0T H S T
O N AV
SUNSHINE PARK
2.607 mile loop
OLANDO PARK
E
UN IV
R SIT
Y AV
ALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
San Diego
Legend
La Mesa Boundary
City Parks
YA
Urban Trail Loops
AV
5-34
900 Feet
LE
5 450
Southwest Quadrant
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Project C.04—Urban Trail Loop- Downtown
C ENTER S T
B
AL
M
TI
OR
MACARTHUR PARK
E
DR
JO N
BL
GUAVA AV
A
EL C
UN
PORTER PARK
I
IT
RS
VE
Y AV
LE
SA
AV
BL
R IN
NO
L
E
AM
N AV
SP
RM
AL
AV
1.59 mile loop
T
GRAN
MO
GS
T
UPLAND ST
FRESNO AV
COLLIER PARK
PAL
DA
AV
V
MA
LE
CI N NABA R
Legend
DR
ECHO DR
La Mesa Boundary
FEBRUARY 2012
T
HS
900 Feet
HIG
HIGHWOOD PARK
0 225 450
City Parks
Downtown
5-35
CITY OF LA MESA
Project C.05—Urban Trail Loop-History Walk
MACARTHUR PARK
BA
BL
IM
E
OR
ON
LT
AJ
EL C
DR
PORTER PARK
U NIV
E R S ITY AV
LEMON AV
T
GRAN
L
GLEN ST
AB
LA
FRESNO AV
T
ND
GS
NO
R IN
UP
SP
RMA
LA
V
LA
S
ME
AV
ST
2.379 mile loop
MARIPOSA ST
COLLIER PARK
P AL
M AV
ECHO DR
CIN
NA
Legend
BA
5-36
S
EA
IDE R
D
La Mesa Boundary
GAT
ES
G E DR
ID
880 Feet
TR
0 220 440
DR
H ST
H IG
R
City Parks
landmarks
Spring Valley
Historic Walk
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Project C.06—Urban Trail-Park Linkages
MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
SUNSET PARK
BL
C
ET
FL
PY
Y
AZTEC PARK
R
HE
DR
LA
AY
K E M URR
DR
JACK
SO N
CE
ER
CE N T
BA
ST
PARKS AV
N
GLE
V
MA
LE
MARIPOSA ST
KS
IN
N
AB
A
ECHO D R
R
DR
M
T
A
RD
AV
E DR
DE
XT
E
LE
DR
Valle De Oro
R
AV
R IDG
PA N OR A
AV
AV C
HIGHWOOD PARK
EA S T
AV
COLLIER PARK
AV
HA
RB
I NS O
N AV
70TH ST
L
PA
AV
DA
P AR
LS
YA
N
IE
OR
LE M O N
T
GS
IT Y
RS
AL
RM
O
N
EL
W
LO
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
HOFFMAN AV
L
LA M E S A B
E
IV
UN
ROLANDO PARK
PORTER PARK
RIN
SP
SUNSHINE PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
DR
L
EL C A JO N B
COLONY RD
N
GR O SS MO T BL
ST
E
AV
VA
OR
IM
LT
A
U
G
San Diego
R
R
D O RD
AL V A RA
E
NT
A
D
PA RK WAY D R
R
M UR
VISTA LA MESA PARK
H IG H
ST
RIV IER A
DR
WAITE DR
Spring Valley
Lemon Grove
Legend
La Mesa Boundary
City Parks
0
750 1,500
3,000 Feet
FEBRUARY 2012
Urban Trail Loops
Park Linkage
5-37
CITY OF LA MESA
R
C
BA L
PA RKWAY D R
AL V AR ADO RD
TI
G
PARKS AV
AV
T
EA S
R
IN DR
SE
VE
R
G RO S SMON T B L
LE M
ON A V
LEMON AV
EUCALYPTUS COUNTY PARK
Valle De Oro
ECHO DR
ST
R
HIGHWOOD PARK
El Cajon
T
N
IE
OR
MU
D
COLLIER PARK
AV
YA D R
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
DR
Y
A
RO FT DR
PORTER PARK
BL
A
S
ME
N
RI
SP
SALVATION ARMY KROC CENTER
N
ST
PY
T
V
MA
AL
RM
O
N
ROLANDO PARK
KSO
L
PA
TY
SI
R
E
IV
UN
SUNSHINE PARK
R
HE
MACARTHUR PARK
LA
AV
AM A
S
EN
GL
COLONY RD
S
TER
N
E
C
R
ED
OR
M
L
E L CA J ON B
HOFFMAN AV
F
AZTEC PARK
R IDG E
VISTA LA MESA PARK
DR
H I GH S
WAITE DR
RD
MU
TC
LE
T
DE
XT
E
KE
BL
R AY
JA
LA
SUNSET PARK
GR
E G OR
Y
BA
NC
MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK
D
LA MESITA PARK
NORTHMONT PARK
RR
JACKSON PARK
H
R
ST
San Diego
T
RI LLO A V
AMA
COWL E S
E L PA S O S
UT
SO
DALLAS ST
N
ER
GL EN
MT
N
BL
Figure 5.7—Recommended Composite Urban Trail Loops
Legend
La Mesa Boundary
City Parks
Walking Routes
The Challenge: Advanced Route
The Stride: Intermediate Route
The Stroll: Beginner Route
Art Walk
Spring
Valley
Park
Linkage
Lemon Grove
Southwest Quadrant
Northeast Quadrant 2
Northeast Quadrant 1
Historic Walk
Downtown
0 1,100 2,200
5-38
4,400 Feet
Collier
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Bike Facility Improvements
It is important to provide safe and connected
bicycle routes, paths, and lanes throughout a city
to promote the use of bicycling as an alterna ve
method of transporta on. In addi on to routes,
lanes and paths, providing bike storage in the form
of racks or lockers at key loca ons is essen al to
support the use of bicycles.
There are three different types of bicycle facility
classifica ons: Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3. Class
1 bikeways (frequently referred to as bike paths)
are facili es physically separated from motor
vehicle routes, with exclusive right-of-way for
bicycles and pedestrians, and with motor vehicle
cross flows kept to a minimum. Class 2 facilies are marked bicycle lanes within roadways
adjacent to the curb lane, delineated by appropriate striping and signage. A Class 3 facility is
a suggested bicycle route marked by a series of
signs designa ng a preferred route between two
des na ons.
In addi on to a network of routes that can provide access to des na ons throughout the community, it is also important to provide bike storage at key loca ons and des na ons. Bike storage can be
provided through racks or lockers and can come in a variety of forms, shapes, and colors to match
the local context. To encourage residents to u lize bicycles to access parks, every park within the
City should have a minimum of one bike rack or locker. Addi onal facili es should be added where
there are mul ple access points into a park.
Addi onal bicycle facili es and design informa on
for the en re City of La Mesa can be found in the
City of La Mesa Bicycle FaciliƟes and AlternaƟve
TransportaƟon Plan.
FEBRUARY 2012
5-39
CITY OF LA MESA
5.1.1 Proposed Park Locations
The City of La Mesa is mostly built out and there is limited vacant, city-owned land. Therefore, the
poten al for new park loca ons is also very limited. Non-tradi onal parks (including pocket parks
and green linear parks along roadways and sidewalks) are becoming popular alterna ves in ci es
with limited available land. Since new parks will be difficult to acquire and finance, it may be more
cost effec ve to stretch limited funding to provide addi onal or enhanced program features within
exis ng parks instead.
However, future project site acquisi ons in quadrants that are park deficient or in neighborhoods
that do not meet the 1-mile and the 15-minute walk me goal should con nue to be a goal. Likewise, major developments in these areas may need to provide addi onal in-lieu park funds to assist
in land acquisi on or should include new usable open space / recrea onal facili es as part of the
development. In addi on, should any programmed, vacant city-owned land become available or
developments opportuni es change, the City should consider the development of new park space,
especially when the parcels are within a significantly under-served area.
5-40
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Land Acquisitions
Vacant, City-owned property is being considered for other uses and is not available for parkland.
However, the Waite Property at the corner of Waite Drive and Murray Hill Road is currently owned
by the County of San Diego and may become available in the future. The City of La Mesa has the
first right of refusal to purchase this property. The City should consider purchasing this parcel and
developing it as parkland as it would serve to fill a gap within the park service area and increase recrea onal opportuni es in the Southwest quadrant. The parcel is 128,160 square feet and is shown
in Figure 5.8. This parcel could be developed as a neighborhood park if it were purchased. If developed, the Waite property could poten ally fill a large service area gap not currently filled by exis ng
parks as indicated in purple in the graphic below. The development of a park on this parcel would
result in an addi onal 1,228 people served within a 15-minute walk me to a park.
Figure 5.8—Waite Property
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
Lake Murray
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Valle De Oro
HIGHWOOD PARK
Legend
Waite Property
City Parks
2010 Residential Land Use
VISTA LA MESA PARK
·
15 Min Walk Time (Park) with Improvements
Spring Valley
Lemon Grove
FEBRUARY 2012
15 Min Walk Time- Waite Property
2010 Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
Non-Residential Land Use Outside 15 Min Walk Time
5-41
CITY OF LA MESA
COORDINATION WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Certain areas of the City are designated to receive infill projects and mixed use developments. Most
of these areas are long corridors designated by SANDAG as smart growth areas (See Figure 5.9).
Some of these areas are transit corridors and others are smart growth town or urban centers. These
areas are intended to be higher density, mixed land uses and more reliant upon transit and walkable condi ons. It will be important to iden fy park opportuni es for all of the projects that are
situated in park deficient areas (see the corridors and smart growth areas that do not overlap with
the green walkable park service areas on Figure 5.9).
Figure 5.9—SANDAG Smart Growth and Mixed Use Transit Corridors
LA MESITA PARK
San Diego
El Cajon
NORTHMONT PARK
JACKSON PARK
SUNSET PARK
HARRY GRIFFEN PARK
BRIERCREST PARK
AZTEC PARK
MACARTHUR PARK
PORTER PARK
SUNSHINE PARK
COLLIER PARK
ROLANDO PARK
Legend
Valle De Oro
15 Min Walk Time to Park
HIGHWOOD PARK
City of La Mesa
Mixed Use Transit Corridors
Smart Growth Areas
VISTA LA MESA PARK
City Parks
Spring Valley
Lemon Grove
5-42
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
In addi on, SANDAG has iden fied several parcels within the City of La Mesa as developable land.
The map below in Figure 5.10 iden fies a few of those developable lands that fall in an area that
is not currently serviced by an exis ng park with a asterisk. From there, a 15-minute walk me is
extended outward to demonstrate the poten al addi onal service areas that could begin to fill in
cri cal gaps. The City should closely monitor the development of the City and look for opportuni es
for park facili es. Park development opportuni es that should be explored related to major project
development should include:
1) Por ons of developable sites dedicated for park or ac ve recrea onal use
2) Inclusion of ac ve recrea on (though not public) internal to these developments
3) Requirement to pay into a park in-lieu fee that could help acquire land or enhance exis ng park
ameni es in these park deficient areas
4) Inclusion of plazas, linear parks, community gardens or green streets as part of the development
5) Pursuit of smart growth funds, CDBG, low income housing or other grants and other partnerships
to support parkland development in associa on with smart growth mixed use, walkable and
transit suppor ve projects
Figure 5.10—Private Development Parks
FEBRUARY 2012
5-43
CITY OF LA MESA
Civic Plaza or Square
There have been significant changes within the downtown area of La Mesa recently. Many of these
changes have resulted from the La Mesa Downtown Streetscape Master Plan and the La Mesa
Downtown Village Specific Plan. Improvements have included a new library, a new police sta on,
and improvements on University Avenue and Allison Avenue. La Mesa should con nue their efforts
to improve the downtown area by encouraging more development and including outdoor public
spaces. In order to strengthen the urban core and civic center, the City should set aside land to
develop a civic plaza or square in this area.
The plaza or square should provide both social and
recrea onal ac vi es. It should func on as a des na on
that people can walk and bike to and use as a gathering space. Program elements such as a stage, a farmer's
market area, an outdoor movie theater space, a small
children's splash pad or play structure, a half court basketball area, community gardens, small food vendors,
outdoor shuffle board courts, bocce ball courts, outdoor
chess tables, and sea ng areas should be considered
and could be incorporated into the design.
5-44
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Community Gardens
Community gardens can range from
simple to complex depending on the site
requirements of the proposed program.
La Mesa should consider incorpora ng
community gardens into the network of
parks and encourage residents to build
gardens to encourage healthy ea ng.
Community gardens can be stand-alone
garden plots, but as a public amenity, can
include addi onal recrea onal elements.
These can include public art, children's
play areas, garden plots, food and produce stands, demonstra on kitchens,
restaurants, benches and sea ng, bee keeping units, compost and green waste bins, interpre ve
signage, and smaller courts including bocce and
shuffle board. These types of facili es foster
a strong community, provide opportuni es to
involve a range of age groups, and contribute to a
healthy lifestyle.
FEBRUARY 2012
5-45
CITY OF LA MESA
5.2 Project Prioritization
Priori za on of projects and improvements should be set by staff and elected officials based on
input from residents in La Mesa. However, funding opportuni es that present themselves should
always move projects to a higher priority. Likewise, areas of the community that are not as well
served by park facili es should take priority over other areas that are generally well served. Priories for missing park facili es and program addi ons should be based on user demand, not just
based on a comparison of exis ng facili es with na onal or state standards.
Implemen ng small por ons of access improvements to park,s such as reducing some barriers but
not all, or adding some sidewalks while leaving other segments missing, should be avoided when
feasible. Any missing link in connec vity for walking or biking to parks will prevent access, so full
connec on links should be pursued. Improving park entry access points should take the first level
of priority in improving connec ons. Second priority should go to walkways systems immediately
around the park and decreasing the further away an area is from the park.
Park access projects iden fied in the plan may benefit Safe Routes to School, Safe Routes to Transit, as well as Safe Routes to Park, and should be considered high priority projects because of their
ability to improve walkablity to mul ple des na ons. Figure 5.11 includes a composite overlay of
the walk mes to schools, parks, and transit sta ons. The pink areas outlined in dark black indicate
where these plans overlap. By fixing barriers and filling gaps in sidewalks, pedestrians traveling to
any of the three des na ons will benefit. The City should work to coordinate, find funding, and
implement the improvements within all three of these plans for maximum accessability.
5.3 Implementation
The implementa on of projects in this master plan should be part of ongoing capital improvement
program development, grant applica on efforts, and other budge ng discussions ongoing at the
City. The master plan will need to be integrated and incorporated into the General Plan Update and
the Recrea on Element prior to implementa on of most of the projects contained in this document. Some projects will require further design, engineering, and public review, while others may
require more environmental review. The implementa on process should also consider the available
resources and funding for maintaining addi onal facili es as they are developed.
5-46
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Figure 5.11—Safe Routes Overlay
5.3.1 Immediate Recommendations
Projects in this category primarily deal with changes in policies and research into funding sources
that may be available in the immediate future. Projects should be simple and supported by the
community, and should not require further environmental review nor exhaus ve design or engineering.
5.3.2 Mid and Long-Term Recommendations
The more complex, costly or environmentally challenging projects, or those that may require the
priori za on and support of staff, elected officials and the general public, should all be considered
mid or long term projects.
5.3.3 Implementation phasing plan
Staff should be assigned to monitor funding cycles, grant opportuni es and community priori es in
order to take advantage of windows of opportuni es. An overall phasing and strategy plan should
be considered a priority for staff assignment so that logical priori es can be made early.
FEBRUARY 2012
5-47
CITY OF LA MESA
5.4 Funding Sources
There are several opportuni es for funding park, open space, and connec vity projects. As with
most grant programs, the more goals and a ributes the project can meet, the more likely it will be
selected for funding. Mul ple benefits and mul ple solu ons offered by a project can o en u lize
mul ple sources of funding. Project development processes should keep in mind appropriate funding strategies when defining, designing, and packaging a project.
5.4.1 Public Funding
The City should collaborate with other jurisdic ons, as well as federal, state, and local agencies,
to iden fy regional, long term funding mechanisms that achieve common resource management
goals. Tables 5.2 to 5.4 iden fy federal, state, and local funding source opportuni es for parks.
5.4.2 Funding for Access and Active Transportation Improvements
The City should seek outside funding opportuni es for improvement projects, par cularly those
that provide safe and con nuous pedestrian and bicycle routes to parks and recrea on facili es.
Grant funding from ac ve transporta on funding sources (bike and pedestrian), Smart Growth
funding sources, ADA improvements, stormwater runoff, urban greening, urban forestry and
healthy communi es should all be reviewed for poten al matching with projects recommended in
this study. Funding sources from federal, state, local, and private opportuni es for improving the
walking and bicycling networks are detailed in the City of La Mesa Bicycle FaciliƟes and AlternaƟve
TransportaƟon Plan.
Table 5.2—Federal Park Funding Sources
Grant Source
Annual Total
Agency
Funding Cycle
Match Required
Land and Water
Conserva on Fund
(LCWF)
$900 million
(authorized)
$37.4 million
(2011)
Na onal Park
Service/California Dept.
of Parks and
Recrea on
Annual
50%
Urban Park and
Recrea on Recovery
(UPRR) Program
$725 million
(authorized)
Na onal Park
Service
Urban Revitaliza on
and Liveable
Communi es Act
$445 million
(proposed)
U.S. Dept. of
Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)
Annual
U.S. Dept.
of Housing
and Urban
Development
(HUD)/City
Councils
Annual
Community
Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
5-48
Remarks
Appor onment to California in
2011 was approximately $1.7
million.
Has not been funded since 2002.
15%-30%
Previous version of the bill
did not advance in the 111th
Congress (2010). New bill (H.R.
709) is currently under review
by the House Financial Services
Commi ee.
HUD awards grants to en tlement community grantees to
carry out a wide range of community development ac vi es
directed toward revitalizing
neighborhoods, economic
development, and providing
improved community facili es
and services.
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Table 5.3—State Park Funding Sources
Grant Source
Annual Total
Agency
Land and Water See Federal
Conserva on Fund Funding Above
(LCWF)
Proposi on 12 2000 Parks Bond
Act
Funding Cycle
Match Required
Remarks
California
Department
of Parks and
Recrea on
Approx. $502
million Bond
Ini a ve
California
Department
of Parks and
Recrea on
Provided local assistance grants.
The state has distributed all
funds from Proposi on 12; unspent funds may remain at the
local level.
Proposi on 40 $2.6 billion
2002 Resources Bond Ini a ve
Bond
California
Department
of Parks and
Recrea on
Provided local assistance grants.
The state has distributed all
funds from Proposi on 12; unspent funds may remain at the
local level.
Environmental
Enhancement and
Mi ga on Program
(EEMP)
$10 million
California Natural Resources
Agency/CALTRANS
Annual
None
Eligible projects must be directly
or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modifica on of an exis ng transportaon facility or construc on of a
new transporta on facility.
California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protec on
(CAL FIRE) Urban
and Forestry Program
Varies
California
Department of
Forestry and
Fire Protec on
(CAL FIRE)
Annual
10% - 25%
Various grants available for differing aspects of urban forestry.
Proposi on 117 Habitat Conservaon Fund
$2 million
California
Department
of Parks and
Recrea on
Annual
50%
Established 1990. Provides
grants for nature interpreta on
and non-capital outlay programs
which bring urban residents
into park and wildlife areas, to
protect fish, wildlife and na ve
plant resources or to acquire or
develop wildlife corridors and
trails.
Annual Total
Agency
Funding Cycle
Match Required
Remarks
Varies
City of La
Mesa
Annual
Varies. Some nonCity funds may
be required as a
match.
Project
Specific
Community
Gi s
Project
Specific
None
Table 5.4—Local Park Funding Sources
Grant Source
Capital Improvement Programs
(CIP)
La Mesa Park and
Recrea on Foundaon
FEBRUARY 2012
Currently raising $1 Million to
revamp five community playgrounds at Collier, Jackson (complete), La Mesita, Northmont (in
process, and Vista La Mesa.
5-49
CITY OF LA MESA
5-50
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Appendix "a"Questionnaire results
FEBRUARY 2012
A-1
CITY OF LA MESA
The online survey provided an opportunity for the community to comment on the quality of the exis ng City parks. A
summary of the facility and program analysis based on quadrants is listed below. The detailed comments and responses to specific ques ons follow.
Parks
Group Picnic Area / Picnic Pavilion
Individual Picnic Tables
Benches
Barbecue
Tot Lot (2-5 years old)
Children's Playground (5-12 years old)
Pool Facili es / Splash Pad
Walking/Running Trails
Parcourse
Off-leash Dog Area
Tennis Courts
Volleyball
Basketball
Soccer Field / Football
Baseball/So ball
Skate Park
Rollerskate Pad
Horseshoes
Golf
Informal Passive Play Area (sloped)
Informal Passive Play Area (flat)
On-site Parking
Restroom
Amphitheater
Ligh ng
Park Deficiencies & Opportunities Analysis- Community Input
NW Community
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
~
NC
A
NC
A
≠
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
NC
≠
Aztec
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
NC
NC
NC
≠
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
≠
Jackson
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
≠
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
≠
Sunset
≠
≠
≠
≠
NC
NC
NC
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
≠
~
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
~
≠
A
NC
√
≠
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
NC
≠
Briercrest
NC
NC
NC
NC
√
√
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Harry Griffin
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
NC
~
NC
~
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
La Mesita
≠
NC
NC
NC
~
~
NC
NC
NC
NC
√
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
R
NC
NC
NC
NC
≠
NC
NC
NC
Northmont
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
~
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
~
NC
A
NC
A
≠
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
NC
≠
Highwood
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Sunshine
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
R
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
≠
NC
NC
NC
Rolando
NC
≠
NC
NC
≠
≠
NC
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
R
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Vista La Mesa
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
~
NC
A
NC
A
≠
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
NC
≠
Collier
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
NC
NC
NC
NC
~
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
NC
NC
MacArthur
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
≠
A
NC
A
NC
NC
R
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
√
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Porter
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NE Community
SW Community
SE Community
Key:
√
~
≠
A
R
NC
A-2
-Acceptable (Meets qualita ve and quan ta ve expecta ons)
-Lacks quality
-Lacks quan ty
-Poten al Addi on
-Poten al Re-Use / Re-design
-No Comment / Not Applicable
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Results and comments from a computer generated, on-line public survey were compiled. The survey ques ons, responses and comments are on the following pages. All comments are verba m and some comments contain spelling
and gramma cal errors.
FEBRUARY 2012
A-3
CITY OF LA MESA
Collier Park needs regular policing to be safe for kids and families. Right now it's more of an outdoor drug
den and homeless shelter.
La Mesa Memorial Park & Rec playground for young children
The La Mesa Pool
Municipal Pool
Sunset Park I am assuming is where the li le league and so ball field are? if so, during so ball season, we
use it almost daily.
Lake Murray.
I mainly use Harry Griffen park because of their great dog park. Don't ever take that away. It's wonderful
for all dog walkers and dog lovers alike. And the dogs have a great me too!
Chollas Lake
I do visit several once or twice per year.
We used to go to collier park because it is within walking distance to our house but we will no longer use
that park for the safety of our children. There are some rough groups that frequent that park and made it
their own. Police are called there all too o en. Its a shame
King Street Park
Lake Murray
Lake Murray park
I use to take my son to Collier park almost daily but now a bunch of thugs hang out there drinking and
smoking their drugs and yelling foul language it is no place for children anymore.
A-4
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Collier Park is very close by to walk to but hugely una rac ve and o en crowded with hooligans. This
park is easily accessible because it is in the heart of La Mesa but rarely do I see children or families there
because it is in need of a severe upgrade. I would recommend removing the worn out tennis courts and replacing it with a new skate park or be er playground equipment. This would allow the people to take back
their neighborhood park from the homeless and hooligans currently there.
King St. Park
The fact I don't use the parks is not indica ve of my belief that others do and should have them available.
I go to Lake Murray o en. Wish there was a dog park there since quite a few people walk their dogs and it
is recommended that you walk a dog before you take them to the dog park.
Between pit bulls, drug addicts and gangs I wouldn't go to any of the parks.
Lake Murrey <>Walk 4 mes a week 5+ Mi each me Plus Bike 1 extra Day Total 5 Days
Most important factor is to provide security with plenty of ligh ng, not dim amber lights. Theres a high
crime element in La Mesa, I suspect because of the available trolley line, easy in, easy out.
Member of YMCA. Use park for walking/running and child's play. Very disappointed with the skate park.
It's very dirty with lots of trash thrown about everyday. Would like to see be er upkeep or convert to
basketball courts. Also there have been people (primarily men) sleeping in the park and is alarming to the
children.
On rare occasions I a end an ac vity at one of our parks.
Use Lake Murray (Mission Trails) every day
Too Many Vagrants
All these parks are important for the overall health and recrea on of those who live nearby them. The
en re city needs these areas for the oxygen-giving trees and plants they contain as well as the beauty and
recrea on they allow for all La Mesans. As the city con nues to evolve into a more densely populated area
with the increased number of condominiums going up, these areas of green grass and free space become
more priceless and necessary for both physical and psychological well-being.
Lake Murray
please clean up this park and this neighborhood.
It is very good of you to ask people who don't necessarily live within the city limits but may use your parks
what they think. It's appreciated.
Rather than such set me frames, perhaps an op onal response should be "occasionally" or "have never
been".
I don't even know where most of these parks are-never heard of several.
Helix High School public use tennis courts
"We live near Collier Park and would use it if it there weren't homeless types there.
My grandson uses the La Mesita skate/bike park daily but it's not that safe either. Two recent incident: A
boy asked to take a turn on his bike. My grandson let him. When he finally asked for it back, the boy gave it
but punched him and said his parents were ""bloods"" and would get him. Another day an older boy took
his bike and hid it but his mother happened to be watching and saw where they put it."
Lemon Avenue School's site
Used parks A LOT more when our sons were growing up and they were in soccer and Li le League.
FEBRUARY 2012
A-5
CITY OF LA MESA
Mission Trails Regional Park has been wonderful for our son who is a boy scout. And it's museum is wonderful. Never take that way either!
I walk Lake Murray weekly and on occasion walk Mission Trails.
I like Eucalyptus Park but there are too many transients there. It is not really safe.
I work at Mission Trails.
Parks are really vital to a community. Please con nue to fund and maintain these wonderful parks and
expand as possible.
For hiking.
Never heard of Eucalyptus Park
Excellent parks. Be sure their well lit.
"also visit wildlife habitats at:
Del Cerro Park
Chollas Creek
Alvarado Creek
Chollas Lake Park
Lake Murray"
Lake Murray is used weekly for walking and picnicing.
A-6
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Lake Murray
San Carlos Park is our favorite park. We like the sand, gated playground, trees, grass, picnic tables, clean
restroom, sidewalks, basketball court and ample parking.
We love Balboa Park and Mission Bay park. They are both so lovely and so much goes on there. Please
don't cut these parks!
We really like the parks/playgrounds at Liberty Sta on in San Diego.
Lake Murray
Visit Cuyamaca State Park one to two mes a year (annually)
"I u lize Cuyamaca State Park to hike during the fall and winter.
Mission Bay I visit mostly in the summer."
I go to Mission Bay a couple of mes a year for the beach, and Cuyamaca several mes a year for hiking.
Liberty Sta on, San Carlos Park, Hilton Head, Trolley Barn Park, Pioneer Park in Mission Hills
I use these when it's hot in La Mesa
I o en go to Mast Park in Santee because they have good bike paths for my kids.
la jolla shores playground
"Santee Lakes Quarterly
Lake Murray Quarterly"
Mission Bay - semi-annual
Frequent Anza Borrego State Park...campsite
"Sweetwater wildlife refuge
Torrey Pines State Park
Water Conserva on Garden
Southwestern College
SouthBay Botanic Garden
San Diego Botanic Garden
Silver Strand"
I go to the park for Museum ac vi es rather than for the park features themselves
"Torrey Pines State Beach
William Heise County Park"
FEBRUARY 2012
A-7
CITY OF LA MESA
Too old, too disabled
o en when my kids take swim lessons
summer
Pools during summer
no set schedule
5 days a week
A-8
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
FEBRUARY 2012
A-9
CITY OF LA MESA
mountain biking
Movie in the Park and other City Events
Bocce
Dog Park
free concerts
Visit with friends
Bicycling
Harp Fest - organized events
Harry Griffin Dog enclosures socialize
Biking
occasional event held at park
Swim Lessons
None. Too many Bums
dog park
take disabled adults on ou ngs to enjoy the parks
it's a mee ng/star ng point for group bicycle rides
swing sets
concerts
enjoy natural beauty: birds, bu erflies, wildlife, plants
Where is Lake Murray???
Drive by myself, some mes with my family, other mes with a friend, just depen
I have to since I don't live that close.
Drive and Bike
A-10
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
FEBRUARY 2012
A-11
CITY OF LA MESA
traffic safety - reduce speeding
more Parking
Build a couple more parks is obvious espescially on the western side of La Mesa
bathrooms, playground equipment
You need to take out the rocks to put in a walkway to go to the dog park.
Safety - PROACTIVE crime preven ve steps / protec on.
More handicapped parking
Elimina on of the bad element
get the riff-raff under control
All of the above
Access is fine the way it is
Improved security
improve restrooms
encourage trash pick-up by users
Kick out the criminals and enforce dogs on leash laws
more play equipment, tennis courts
Collier Park - less creepy people hanging out
post opening & closing me of park.
more tennis courts
La Mesita Park be er upkeep of skate park
crea on of neighborhood pocket parks
Get rid of the loosers
add grass to dog run at Harry G.
keep the homeless out
another dog park
Be er street connec vity
A-12
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
I-8 freeway crossing needed
rou ne visits or at least drive-bys from police
The access is fine for me now...
closest park is only a soccer field
adequate parking
improve restrooms
encourage trash pick-up by users
Kick out the criminals and enforce dogs on leash laws
more play equipment, tennis courts
Collier Park - less creepy people hanging out
post opening & closing me of park.
more tennis courts
La Mesita Park be er upkeep of skate park
crea on of neighborhood pocket parks
Get rid of the loosers
add grass to dog run at Harry G.
keep the homeless out
another dog park
Be er street connec vity
I-8 freeway crossing needed
rou ne visits or at least drive-bys from police
The access is fine for me now...
closest park is only a soccer field
adequate parking
FEBRUARY 2012
A-13
CITY OF LA MESA
I used to play tennis at Collier Park but never felt safe there. It's too hidden from the road and if someone
were a acked there, it's possible no one would hear them.
none
Maybe more signage as a form of adver sing?
There is no access to the pool other than driving oneself which is unfortunate.
There should be a Boys & Girls Club in Highwood Park
Sunset Park - closer access to so ball field. it is a long walk from parking to field, especially if assis ng the
league with sports equipment. Ligh ng is needed at the so ball field.
Build more tennis courts. Don't rebuild parks by increasing parking pavement. When re-designing parks,
remember it's a park not a parking lot.
We live closest to Highwood Park. Sadly it is not a very safe park and walking near Helix High when school
is le ng out can be unsafe due to the speed of teenage drivers.
"Most parks seem to be maintained well. Two excep ons are Harry Griffen, turf is under maintained, under
irrigated for the amount of ac vity on weekends Dog Park is under maintained and also not irrigated properly as it is a dust bowl.
Highwood Park behind the Boys & Girls club needs to be completed or at least something done towards
the back."
Sunshine Park is the absolute worst! I don't know what the solu on is because there is no parking lot but
70th street is so dangerous in that area. Whenever we use it, I hate crossing the street there.
N/A
The Poppy Street entrance to Harry Griffin Park could look nicer, rather than the chain link fence that's
there now. But since I live across the street, I like that the park is chained up at night. Occasional police
patrols at Harry Griffin would be good too.
La Mesa parks are becoming crime areas. The parks are only used by thugs in the evening. I.E. Aztec park HORRIBLE ligh ng at night - might as well be NYC Central Park in the 60's. This environment INVITES punks
to this area.
Treesm treesm trees,,,
walking to Harry Griffin is a bit scary when I get close to the park as there are no sidewalks in areas and I
must use the street
Briercrest is fabulously accessible. In terms of use by children, please consider child development that
allows more nature in play like they do in Europe (i.e. the logs that the county removed from Eucalyptus
park), and that allow children to explore the laws of physics by spinning, bouncing etc(i.e. playground on
Park Blvd. by Balboa Park).
Dog Poop Bags at the parks.
I think our parks are wonderful
Eucalyptus park needs a safer entry and exit off Bancro Rd.
"Pool needs a tall tunnel like slide. A few more pools in other parks.
More dog waste pickup at lake Murray.
Briercrest is a model for future renova ons. Also like the variety of ac vi es and landscapes at harry grif
park.
A-14
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Tennis court renova on terrific project."
more off leash are for dogs
Again, I believe more individuals especially those with children would walk to the neighborhood parks if
there were sidewalks leading up to the parks throughout La Mesa.
Highwood Park needs to get "un-ghe o". La Mesa is so pre y and we na ves have pride in living here.
More signs indica ng there are parks in the area. Most the me the parks in La Mesa I have found just by
driving by randomly, or through sugges ons by friends.
Be er and more ligh ng at both Jackson and Aztec parks. They are difficult to use in the winter months
when it gets dark early.
If possible for grass in dog park areas would be nice to reduce the dust in the summer; best would be to put
in fake grass that can stand up to heavy dog traffic at Harry Griffith. Love that park it is great.
Dog park at Lake Murray and dog run at MacArthur near Memorial Dr...many dog walkers in the area. More
rollerska ng,walkways, tennis courts where possible at the parks. Frisbee golf at Harry Griffen park...lots of
room there. Need more benches at some of the parks.
I currently use the basketball courts above the municipal pool on Saturdays for dog training. There is always
some trash, etc le for us to pick up Saturday morning. In other words, the area is secluded, dark and used
for more than basketball at night.
Collier Park is a haven for homeless and loitering teens. It's ok during the day, but at night it turns into a
drug drive thru and we really like playing tennis here in the evening. I guess the drugs and randoms keep
other people from going to the park, maybe that is the only reason we are usually able to get on the court.
It would be nice to have shade canopies over the playgrounds and sea ng areas with shade.
I would visit Harry Griffen Park during summer concert series if the performing groups were be er quality
similar to El Cajon or Grossmont Center. More parking is needed for the summer concert series also.
Be er upkeep of skate park located at La Mesita Park on Dallas. Always dirty and shows signs of destrucon. Convert or do away with skate park.
Kick out the bums
see above
I don't know the names of the parks. That said, the city should promote or host events at all of the targeted
parks to generate interest in them. You could do anything from private (weddings, birthday par es) and
community (gradua ons, memorial services, city mee ngs) to corporate (food/beverage companies, clubs,
etc.).
Bike racks for locking.
eucalyptus park is very close to us but to cross bancro street is dangerous. we need a crosswalk and pedestrian light to access it from mariposa st.
A park.footbridge across creek to dog park and Griffith
I feel all of them could benefit from be er signage. If you didnt already know where most of them were,
you wouldnt be directed in by signage in the area. The one excep on might be Harry Griffen Park.
Collier Park entrance is confusing and easily missed. Plus, driving down that li le road adds to the unsafe
feeling of being trapped down there with your car out of view from the street.
collier-safer and updated play equipment
Collier needs a be er access path from the south.
FEBRUARY 2012
A-15
CITY OF LA MESA
Highland would benefit from western access. Sunshine is nearly barren. All La Mesa parks would benefit
from more areas le natural, less pre-fab tot areas and more places to roam and explore nature. City parks
filled with beau ful plant material could showcase the richness of the wide range of plants that can grow
here.
"pedestrian bridges over busier streets such as University Ave./La Mesa Blvd., sidewalks with a buffer between the motor vehicle traffic, more trees.
Griffin is the most tucked away, so I am not sure how to make that one more accessible. Bicycling is a challenge because of the street hills. This makes it difficult for young children to peddle."
"More police presence in the parks.
Use the bike routes as green belts (street trees, con guous sidewalks, parkways, bike signage) that connect
neighborhoods to schools and parks.
You have to include the schools as recrea on facili es as well. The City and School District need to further
develop joint use facili es"
"I love Mac Arthur park with Sun Valley Golf Course
and the swimming pool. I have been using it for 40+ years since I was a li le girl! I hope it stays around
forever..."
The park behind Rolando School has no ameni es.
A-16
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
unsafe or broken play equipment
Too busy with other ac vi es
Not sure where they are all located
see below
Time
easier pedestrian access from Bal more to Lake Murray
Own personal schedule too busy
Too much homeless ac vity
Time
Nothing
use lake Murray
Street/sidewalk connec vity
Haven't go en around to it
not a lot of variety at the parks
Aztec is always being used by soccer teams -crowd out others
No bicycle storage
Disc golf at MacArthur/ Porter is only useful for those who play or are willing to pay. I don't conser it to be
a useful park for that reason.
This comment only applies to Collier Park. Other parks feel safe.
FEBRUARY 2012
A-17
CITY OF LA MESA
"There are no major hiking trails in La Mesa parks due to the terrain, so I go to Mission Trails. Also go to
Mission Bay for the aqua cs and to Balboa Park for events and museums and gardens.
Can't compare La Mesa's parks to these. If I had kids I would definitely use La Mesa's parks more."
I never go to Collier Park anymore because there are always homeless people hanging out there. In my
opinion it's one of the pre est parks in La Mesa. It's too bad moms and kids don't feel safe there!
Trash is a problem at Harry Griffin, especially on the playground, because of all the par es at that park.
Maybe fine par es that don't clean up a er themselves? And the park on Severin just north of Amaya has a
notorious crime problem, as well as outdated and unsafe playground equipment.
Crime is increasing in these La Mesa park especially in the evening due the decision of poor ligh ng.
There is not a park close to our home. Aztec Park is within 10 minutes by car. To walk or ride a bike we
would have to cross Fletcher Pkwy and Bal more to get to it. The traffic at these intersec ons can be a
challenge.
Feel unsafe at park - 10am Friday morning Collier Park was full of bums. I did not stay. Did not feel safe to
walk my dog there.
I would love to see more shaded sea ng for folks like me who like to just sit and read.
felt very unsafe playing tennis at Collier park in the evening. Regular police patrols would probably help.
Also the court there is in horrible condi on.
"La Mesita is WAY too crowded on weekends with too many par es and no parking
Colier does not feel safe- I've had to leave many mes"
Collier Park
i use a school playground instead
So ball Games at night.
I would like to see childrens playground
"Too busy working in my back yard, making it park-like.
Harry Griffen doesn't have enough parking during the Sunday evening summer concerts."
My kids love to run and roll in the grass. Their favorite park is Briercrest because they can do just that, plus
it's just a gorgeous park. We need more parks like that.
Not enough "big kid" swings.
Collier and Highwood
Again, Collier Park has an unsafe and not family friendly feel due to a lack of playground equipment and
worn out tennis courts. MacArthur Park is great but only available for children up to 5 years of age. Aztec
Park is a nice neighborhood park but in need of more shade and tables for picnic par es. Briercrest Park is
amazing and fabulously planned! I especially like the very natural feel to the park.
"Sunshine has no ligh ng and I know more people would use it, if there were some lights present.
Jackson Park is a great park, but there is not enough room for a game of soccer."
Bathrooms are too far for me to watch one child go to the bathroom while the other three are at the playground at Eucalyptus Park.
"Mission Trails Regional Park - Not enough parking spaces and No playground.
A-18
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
La Mesita Park - Rundown playground. Needs to be fixed. Kids miss the removed swings."
Unitl this survey, I didn't realize that La Mesa had 14 parks.
Not many off leash dog parks.
When I took my Grandson to the parks in La Mesa I encountered homeless people who were obviously
on drugs, teens who were causing trouble and pit bulls off lead. I grew up here using Collier Park, I would
never go to that park now. However I now live in Lake Murray and it is ge ng bad now on this side of town.
La Mesa needs to clean up all of La Mesa and take it back from the bad elements
Would love addi onal tennis courts. Cannot take my kids to Collier in the evening. Love Briercrest, but no
play equipment for the kids.
I just need more me to enjoy our parks!
Collier Park is the closet La Mesa Park to me and it can be a creepy place with lots of people just hanging
out.
La Mesita Park located on Dallas
I can walk around the neighborhood more easily. The nearest park (Collier) has no special a rac on and
seems unsafe when transients are present.
Harry G park... I'm handicapped and have to walk all the way around to get to the dog park. Why not have a
direct route (bridge?) from the parking to the dog runs?
There is a bit of ghe o vibe at the La Mesa parks I visit. You have loud, poor-excuses-for-mothers barking at
their children in incomprehensible street English, or worse smacking their kids. I don't want to expose my
children to that. Plus, maintenance of the grounds/aesthe c are typically not up to the standard of my own
backyard.
Use Lake Murray to walk dog. Likes length of walk and the nice view
No reason to be at the parks
need off leash areas - larger too
Note: Children have now "aged out" of AYSO, and birthday par es- so do not get to these parks anymore-a large part of the clientele are there for soccer prac ces/games for those appropriate parks with fields.
Clean restrooms a must! Police supervision for unwanted clientele a must! (not necessarily in that order..)
I dont go in the early evening at dusk and would never go into the night as they are too dark. Jackson and
Aztec come to mind as they are two near my home. I will walk in my well lit neighborhood, but not in those
parks
Need more tennis courts, swing sets, equipment.
I really feel no need to go to a park.
I would walk if there were a more direct, be er connected walking path to the park (as the crow flies).
Instead I drive because it is faster.
Collier Park has begun to feel unsafe with the homeless people and groups of teenagers hanging out.
FEBRUARY 2012
A-19
CITY OF LA MESA
I go out of my way to visit natural space parks. I recently discovered Del Cerro Park by car. A hidden gem.
The only truly beau ful park in La Mesa is Harry Griffin, but I live in west La Mesa, and it is far east. There
are no public tennis courts in the west region of La Mesa; even the Kroc center has no tennis or natural
park space. Rolando Park is strictly a ball field and there isn't much else. Lake Murray is alluring but ridiculous, as freeway overpass is daun ng to walk or bike over.
We are busy and do a lot of walking around La Mesa. We love the stairs on Mt. Nebo. As I said, my grandson uses La Mesita daily. We just don't spend much me at parks except for the zoo and museums in
Balboa Park.
"I would like more walking trails at the larger parks, Harry Griffen, dg lined paths with shade trees.
More urban walking trails, like the stairs, or streets with parkways and street trees.
I would also like a running track. These are only available at the high schools, which are not open early in
the morning (5am)
Natural areas, such as at highwood park and Collier. Collier park has the poten al of becoming a terrific
community park"
This is a limited use park.
"Highwood Park is the closest park to us, it only is for limited, passive recrea on (except for the small children's playground) since it is all sloping terrain, is small. What more can a park have like this...I know- seating! That's passive...but can several park benches be installed?
If I want to ride my bike to a park, I need to have secure parking/storage for it. Is it possible to have secure
bike storage and/or bike racks I can safely park my bike?"
A-20
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Thank you for all you do for our parks and for your care and concern in preserving them.
"The pool locker room needs soap, TP & clean drains daily. Shower curtains need to be laundered or replaced for sanitary reasons.
Annual passes need a larger expira on date put in bold, large font on back or front so guards can easily
read so that we all don't waste me in line. Put pool cover on daily. Staff never listens to sugges ons."
"The pool is poorly maintained. Locker rooms dirty.
During noon lap swim in the summer, the number of lanes is reduced to make room for swim lessons. Then
the pool manager has the instructors have the kids jump off the diving board which prevents 2 people from
swimming. It is also dangerous if a kid slips because the lane ropes stay in place."
I would love to see more parks in La Mesa.
La Mesa Parks are pre y well kept. We need to be sure they aren't taken over by homeless people and
gangs.
JUST KEEP THE HARRY GRIFFEN PARK GOING. WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE OUR DOG PARK. THANKS.
Help reduce La mesa crime - increase ligh ng in these parks and increase patrols in these parks.
Thank you for the survey.
Need more off leash dog areas. The off leash dog areas in Balboa Park are not fenced.
Thank you for accep ng public input. La Mesa has some beau ful parks...and some that need a en on.
This is a wonderful way to get ideas and opinions.
When we use parks we go for playgrounds, shade for picnics, and exercise at Lake Murray. Thanks for the
survey!
More evening team sport games held at parks that have night me ligh ng. Please put in lights for evening
So ball and Baseball games. Especially Li le League games in the Spring and Summer. Much cooler in
the evenings and with lights on, then the games are comfortable to enjoy. Oh yes, snack bars are a great
revenue.
We need a good park by the village. It would be awesome to have one near the library. The old police dept.
& the old post office would be decent spots for a small, fenced-in park, but the spot where the Windmere
Real Estate office is would be be er (or that huge area between the VFW and the 8...without all that commercial property once proposed.
More shade would be great over the playstructures. Also, the playground equipment at Northmont Park
could be updated!
Thanks. Love the parks!!!!!!
I wish there were more swings available at parks, and when there are swings at parks like Jackson, and
Harry Griffith majority of the me they are occupied.
La Mesita Park keeps ge ng broken items removed and not replaced. The playground needs a renova on.
The parks around it have nicer playgrounds. More people would u lize if the playground were more a racve. It's a great family spot otherwise.
Our city has great parks. I see them used and they should be. I hope the City publishes the results of this
survey. I may have missed it, but I did not see the Senior Center Listed. My wife uses that facility o en.
FEBRUARY 2012
A-21
CITY OF LA MESA
would be ideal to be able to reserve covered picnic table areas for par es like at Santee parks. Also, need to
have cleaner bathrooms like Santee parks
La Mesa has some of the best kept parks in San Diego. I just wanted to thank you for that.
"I love Briercrest Park. It is a fun place to walk. Beau ful place. Love the shade trees that are growing bigger each year.
Most o en use park by the Rec Center. Walk my dogs there daily.
I love La Mesa."
This survey is nicely done, in that it provides lots of opportunity for input. But, it does not address what I
think is an important ques on. "Do you support parks in your city, even though you do not use them?" The
answer is yes, parks are a vital part of our community. Keep up the great work you do in providing them.
Thank you.
Thanks for the opportunity to add to this discussion. I am a senior who no longer uses as many of the facilies as I did before but nevertheless, I appreciated them as a younger person and believe they are important to all genera ons.
Aztec Park is closest to my home. It needs more patrolling. O en dogs are off leash in spite of the new
signs. Also, some of the pavement needs improvement, and one area of the walkway near the playground
floods in rainy season.
I understand that many parks have playground equipment, as when we think of parks, we typically think
children. However I would like to see more mul -age use offerings for teenagers and older adults. It could
be exercise classes or concerts, although I know some parks have these.
Need to plant more shade trees in all parks, especially Sunset Park, near the ball fields. The two that were
there were cut down and not replaced!!!!!
A Boys & Girls Club is a great necessity in La Mesa, perhaps Highwood Park.
"There is evidence that a nature connec on and trees in ci es can significantly improve public health and
safety.
h p://www.naturewithin.info/consumer.html
h p://www.naturewithin.info/transporta on.html
h p://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/bulle ns/057Supp.cfm
h p://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/"
I hope La Mesa can con nue keeping all of its parks safe and available for families. Even if I personally don't
use all of them, each one is a beau ful addi on to our neighborhoods.
I do not want to see the City spend tax dollars to purchase more land for parks, when I feel the parks we
have are underdeveloped. I want community gardens, local theater, trails (along the streets and segregated), street lined streets, con guous sidewalks to schools and parks. Parks that have natural areas, as well
as recrea on facili es.
Good and plen ful parks in a city are so important - La Mesa is such a great city in large part due to its
parks and green spaces.
some of your use ques ons should have included "annual" as an op on.
A-22
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Appendix "B"Workshop boards and
comments
FEBRUARY 2012
B-1
CITY OF LA MESA
B-2
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Draft Vision Statement Board:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-3
CITY OF LA MESA
B-4
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Draft Goals and Vision Statement Board:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-5
CITY OF LA MESA
B-6
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-7
CITY OF LA MESA
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
B-8
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-9
CITY OF LA MESA
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
B-10
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-11
CITY OF LA MESA
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
B-12
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-13
CITY OF LA MESA
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
B-14
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-15
CITY OF LA MESA
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
B-16
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-17
CITY OF LA MESA
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
B-18
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-19
CITY OF LA MESA
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
B-20
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
FEBRUARY 2012
B-21
CITY OF LA MESA
Public Input Comments on Map Boards:
B-22
FINAL
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The following two boards were presented at the workshop as informa onal boards. They discussed the exis ng facilies in La Mesa, a service area analysis, and provided defini ons of the different types of parks.
FEBRUARY 2012
B-23
CITY OF LA MESA
B-24
FINAL