Solana Beach City Council
September 25, 2024

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 25, 2024 Page 1 of 7

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, & HOUSING AUTHORITY AGENDA
Joint REGULAR Meeting
Wednesday, September 25, 2024 * 6:00 p.m.

City Hall / Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California ➢ City Council meetings are video recorded and archived as a permanent record. The video recording captures the complete proceedings of the meeting and is available for viewing on the City's website. ➢ Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time prior to meetings for processing new submittals. Complete records containing meeting handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request.

PUBLIC MEETING ACCESS
The Regular Meetings of the City Council are scheduled for the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays and are broadcast live. The video taping of meetings are maintained as a permanent record and contain a detailed account of the proceedings. Council meeting tapings are archived and available for viewing on the City’s Public Meetings webpage.

WATCH THE MEETING
• Live web-streaming: Meetings web-stream live on the City’s website on the City’s Public Meetings webpage. Find the large Live Meeting button.
• Live Broadcast on Local Govt. Channel: Meetings are broadcast live on Cox Communications - Channel 19 / Spectrum (Time Warner)-Channel 24 / AT&T U-verse Channel 99. • Archived videos online: The video taping of meetings are maintained as a permanent record and contain a detailed account of the proceedings. Council meeting tapings are archived and available for viewing on the City’s Public Meetings webpage.

AGENDA MATERIALS
A full City Council agenda packet including relative supporting documentation is available at City Hall, the Solana Beach Branch Library (157 Stevens Ave.), La Colonia Community Ctr., and online www.cityofsolanabeach.org. Agendas are posted at least 72 hours prior to regular meetings and at least 24 hours prior to special meetings. Writings and documents regarding an agenda of an open session meeting, received after the official posting, and distributed to the Council for consideration, will be made available for public viewing at the same time. In addition, items received at least 1 hour 30 minutes prior to the meeting time will be uploaded online with the agenda posting. Materials submitted for consideration should be forwarded to the City Clerk’s department 858-720-2400. The designated location for viewing of hard copies is the City Clerk’s office at City Hall during normal business hours.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Written correspondence (supplemental items) regarding an agenda item at an open session meeting should be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] with a) Subject line to include the meeting date b) Include the Agenda Item # as listed on the Agenda. o Correspondence received after the official posting of the agenda, but two hours prior to the meeting start time, on the meeting day, will be distributed to Council and made available online along with the agenda posting. All submittals received before the start of the meeting will be made part of the record. o Written submittals will be added to the record and not read out loud.

And/Or
Verbal Comment Participation:

Please submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk prior to the meeting, or the announcement of the Section/Item, to provide public comment. Allotted times for speaking are outlined on the speaker’s slip for each agenda section: Oral Communications, Consent, Public Hearings and Staff Reports.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 25, 2024 Page 2 of 7 Public speakers have 3 minutes each to speak on each topic. Time may be donated by another individual who is present at the meeting to allow an individual up to 6 minutes to speak. Group: Time may be donated by two individuals who are present at the meeting allowing an individual up to 10 minutes to speak. Group Hearings: For public hearings only, time may be donated by two individuals who are present at the meeting allowing an individual up to 15 minutes to speak.

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Section 202. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s office (858) 720-2400 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

As a courtesy to all meeting attendees, please set all electronic devices to silent mode and engage in conversations outside the Council Chambers.

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
Lesa Heebner
Mayor
Jewel Edson
Deputy Mayor / Councilmember District 3
Kristi Becker
Councilmember District 2
Jill MacDonald
Councilmember District 4
David A. Zito
Councilmember District 1
Alyssa Muto
City Manager
Johanna Canlas
City Attorney
Angela Ivey
City Clerk
SPEAKERS:

Please submit your speaker slip to the City Clerk prior to the meeting or the announcement of the Item. Allotted times for speaking are outlined on the speaker’s slip for Oral Communications, Consent, Public Hearings and Staff Reports.

READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:

Pursuant to Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 2.04.460, at the time of introduction or adoption of an ordinance or adoption of a resolution, the same shall not be read in full unless after the reading of the title, further reading is requested by a member of the Council. If any Councilmember so requests, the ordinance or resolution shall be read in full. In the absence of such a request, this section shall constitute a waiver by the council of such reading.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

FLAG SALUTE:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

PROCLAMATIONS/CERTIFICATES: Ceremonial
None at the posting of this agenda
PRESENTATIONS: Ceremonial items that do not contain in-depth discussion and no action/direction.

None at the posting of this agenda
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

Comments relating to items on this evening’s agenda are taken at the time the items are heard.

This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 25, 2024 Page 3 of 7 Council on items relating to City business and not appearing on today’s agenda by submitting a speaker slip (located on the back table) to the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action shall be taken by the City Council on public comment items. Council may refer items to the City Manager for placement on a future agenda. The maximum time allotted for each presentation is THREE MINUTES. No donations of time are permitted (SBMC 2.04.190). Please be aware of the timer light on the Council Dais.

COUNCIL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENTARY:

An opportunity for City Council to make brief announcements or report on their activities. These items are not agendized for official City business with no action or substantive discussion.

A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Action Items) (A.1. - A.2.)
Items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted in a single action of the City Council unless pulled for discussion. Any member of the public may address the City Council on an item of concern by submitting to the City Clerk a speaker slip (located on the back table) before the Consent Calendar is addressed. Those items removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the Council will be trailed to the end of the agenda, while Consent Calendar items removed by the public will be heard immediately after approval of the Consent Calendar to hear the public speaker.

All speakers should refer to the public comment section at the beginning of the agenda for details.

Please be aware of the timer light on the Council Dais.

A.1. Register Of Demands. (File 0300-30)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Ratify the list of demands for August 17, 2024 – September 06, 2024.

Item A.1. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

A.2. State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) Grant Funds for Firefighting Equipment. (File 0260-40)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Approve Resolution 2024-095:
a. Accepting $9,409 in federal funds from a 2023 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) grant awarded to the City of Solana Beach for the purchase of firefighting hoods and gas monitors.
b. Authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to sign and submit the required California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs. c. Approving a budget amendment of $9,409 to the Misc. Grant Fund - Federal Grants revenue account 246-46600 and the Minor Equipment expenditure account 2466120-64190.
d. Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget accordingly.

Item A.2. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 25, 2024 Page 4 of 7 NOTE: The City Council shall not begin a new agenda item after 10:30 p.m. unless approved by a unanimous vote of all members present. (SBMC 2.04.070) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (B.1.)
This portion of the agenda provides citizens an opportunity to express their views on a specific issue as required by law after proper noticing by submitting a speaker slip (located on the back table) to the City Clerk. After considering all of the evidence, including written materials and oral testimony, the City Council must make a decision supported by findings and the findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. An applicant or designee(s) for a private development/business project, for which the public hearing is being held, is allotted a total of fifteen minutes to speak, as per SBMC 2.04.210. A portion of the fifteen minutes may be saved to respond to those who speak in opposition. All other speakers should refer to the public comment section at the beginning of the agenda for time allotment. Please be aware of the timer light on the Council Dais.

B.1. Public Hearing: 403 Pacific Ave., Applicant: Bates, Case No.: MOD24-001, APN:
263-051-07 (File 0600-40)
The proposed project meets the minimum objective requirements under the LUP, SBMC, is consistent with the General Plan and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a modification to a DRP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, and Close the Public Hearing.

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2024-088 conditionally approving a to a Development Review Permit (DRP) to remodel the interior of the residence and replace the windows, exterior doors, roofing, siding, and replace existing fireplace with a gas fireplace at the existing two-story residence at 403 Pacific Avenue.

Item B.1. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals.

The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

C. STAFF REPORTS: (C.1. – C.3.)
Submit speaker slips to the City Clerk.

All speakers should refer to the public comment section at the beginning of the agenda for time allotments. Please be aware of the timer light on the Council Dais.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 25, 2024 Page 5 of 7 C.1. Wildcoast Petition to Change Swami’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) Boundaries. (File 0220-70)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Provide direction on next steps, if any, for community outreach and involvement.

Item C.1. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

C.2. Utility Underground Districts and Adopting District Boundary Maps for the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview UUD and the Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD. (File 0820-48)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2024-006:
a. Authorizing payment of $18,647 to SDG&E from the City’s share of CPUC Rule 20A allocation for the redesign of the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Underground District.
b. Approving the Revised District Boundary Map for the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Underground District subject to final voting approval from the District property owners as outlined in the “Steps to Forming a Private Residential Utility Underground District” brochure.

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-007:
a. Authorizing payment of $24,979 to SDG&E from the City’s share of CPUC Rule 20A allocation for the redesign of the of the Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District.
b. Approving the Revised District Boundary Map for the Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District subject to final voting approval from the District property owners as outlined in the “Steps to Forming a Private Residential Utility Underground District” brochure.

Item C.2. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 25, 2024 Page 6 of 7 C.3. General Fund Update (Unaudited) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. (File 0330-30) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Accept and file the General Fund Update for FY24.

2. Provide direction to Staff regarding whether to use an amount of the projected General Fund surplus to fund the PARS Irrevocable Trust for Pensions as part of a budget appropriation to the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance, and other funds as determined by the Finance Department, in FY24.

3. Provide direction to Staff regarding whether to use an amount of the projected General Fund surplus to add funding to the Asset Replacement Fund as part of a budget appropriation to the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance in FY24.

4. Provide direction to Staff regarding whether to use an amount of the projected General Fund surplus to add funding to the Facilities Replacement Fund as part of a budget appropriation to the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance in FY24.

5. Approve Resolution 2024-100 revising appropriations in the FY24 budget.

6. Authorize the City Treasurer to amend the FY24 budget accordingly.

Item C.3. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

WORK PLAN COMMENTS:

Adopted June 26, 2024
COMPENSATION & REIMBURSEMENT DISCLOSURE:

GC: Article 2.3. Compensation: 53232.3. (a) Reimbursable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, meals, lodging, and travel. 53232.3 (d) Members of a legislative body shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the expense of the local agency “City” at the next regular meeting of the legislative body.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council Committees
REGIONAL COMMITTEES: (outside agencies, appointed by this Council) a. City Selection Committee (meets twice a year) Primary-Heebner, Alternate-Edson b. Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) JPA: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito c. County Service Area 17: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Edson d. Escondido Creek Watershed Authority: Becker / Staff (no alternate). e. League of Ca. Cities’ San Diego County Executive Committee: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker. Subcommittees determined by its members. f. League of Ca. Cities’ Local Legislative Committee: Primary-MacDonald, AlternateBecker g. League of Ca. Cities’ Coastal Cities Issues Group (CCIG): Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker
h. North County Dispatch JPA: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker i. North County Transit District: Primary-Edson, Alternate-MacDonald j. Regional Solid Waste Association (RSWA): Primary-Zito, Alternate-MacDonald k. SANDAG: Primary-Heebner, 1st Alternate-Zito, 2nd Alternate-Edson. Subcommittees determined by its members.
l. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito m. San Dieguito River Valley JPA: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda September 25, 2024 Page 7 of 7 n. San Elijo JPA: Primary-Zito, Primary-Becker, Alternate-City Manager o. 22nd Agricultural District Association Community Relations Committee: Primary-Edson, Primary-Heebner
STANDING COMMITTEES: (All Primary Members) (Permanent Committees) a. Business Liaison Committee – Zito, Edson
b. Fire Dept. Management Governance & Organizational Evaluation – Edson, MacDonald
c. Highway 101 / Cedros Ave. Development Committee – Heebner, Edson d. Parks and Recreation Committee – Zito, Edson
e. Public Arts Committee – Edson, Heebner
f. School Relations Committee – Becker, MacDonald
g. Solana Beach-Del Mar Relations Committee – Heebner, Edson

CITIZEN COMMISSION(S)
a. Climate Action Commission – Zito, Becker
ADJOURN:

Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting is October 9, 2024
Always refer to the City’s website Event Calendar for an updated schedule or contact City Hall. www.cityofsolanabeach.org 858-720-2400

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
§
I, Angela Ivey, City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, do hereby certify that this Agenda for the September 25, 2024 Council Meeting was called by City Council, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Public Financing Authority, and the Housing Authority of the City of Solana Beach, California, was provided and posted on September 18, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. on the City Bulletin Board at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. Said meeting is held at 6:00 p.m., September 25, 2024, in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California.

Angela Ivey, City Clerk
City of Solana Beach, CA
UPCOMING CITIZEN CITY COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS:

Regularly Scheduled, or Special Meetings that have been announced, are posted on each Citizen Commission’s Agenda webpage. See the Citizen Commission’s Agenda webpages or the City’s Events Calendar for updates.
o Budget & Finance Commission
o Climate Action Commission
o Parks & Recreation Commission
o Public Arts Commission
o View Assessment Commission
}
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.1.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance
SUBJECT: Register of Demands
BACKGROUND:

Section 3.04.020 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code requires that the City Council ratify a register of demands which represents all financial demands made upon the City for the applicable period.

DISCUSSION:

Staff certifies that the register of demands has been reviewed for accuracy, that funds are available to pay the above demands, and that the demands comply with the adopted budget.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The register of demands for August 17, 2024, through September 6, 2024, reflects total expenditures of $1,196,034.62 from various City sources.

WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
• Ratify the register of demands.
• Do not ratify and provide direction.

Register of Demands: 08/17/2024 through 09/06/2024
Check Register - Disbursement Fund (Attachment 1) $ 896,984.89 Net Payroll Retiree Health September 6, 2024 2,842.00
Net Payroll Staff P05 August 30, 2024 296,207.73
TOTAL $ 1,196,034.62
September 25, 2024
Register of Demands

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the above register of demands. _______________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Check Register – Disbursement Fund
Page: 1 of 11
City of Solana Beach
Register of Demands

8/17/2024 - 9/6/2024
Department
Vendor Description Date
Check/EFT
Number Amount
100 - GENERAL FUND
MISSION SQUARE PLAN 302817 Payroll Run 1 - Warrant P05 08/29/2024 9001652 $13,991.26 CITY OF DEL MAR REIMB: FALL 23 FIRE CLASS #71811-2 STUDENTS 09/06/2024 107214 $567.00 CITY OF DEL MAR REIMB: SPRING 24 FIRE CLASS #31879-2 STUDENTS 09/06/2024 107214 $567.00 AFLAC AUGUST 24 08/29/2024 107169 $914.88
LESA HEEBNER CANDIDATE STATEMENT REFUND 08/23/2024 107147 $2,200.00 JEWEL EDSON CANDIDATE STATEMENT REFUND 08/23/2024 107146 $1,900.00 DAVID ZITO CANDIDATE STATEMENT REFUND 08/23/2024 107168 $1,900.00 PATRICIA SULLIVAN FCCC SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND - 08/04/24 08/23/2024 107153 $500.00 CALPERS P05 457 CONTRIBUTION 09/03/2024 990120317 $3,715.53 CALPERS P04 457 CONTRIBUTIONS 08/20/2024 990120320 $3,783.61 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. P04 FSA/DCA CONTRIBUTIONS 08/23/2024 9001645 $2,106.98 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. P04 FSA/DCA CONTRIBUTIONS 08/23/2024 9001645 $1,825.04 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. PC02 FSA CONTRIBUTIONS 08/23/2024 9001645 $266.67 INSTATAX P04 TAX PAYMENT 08/21/2024 990120322 $32,773.73 INSTATAX P04 TAX PAYMENT 08/21/2024 990120322 $6,278.84 INSTATAX P04 TAX PAYMENT 08/21/2024 990120322 $9,399.48 INSTATAX P04 TAX PAYMENT 08/21/2024 990120322 $12,607.13 INSTATAX P04 TAX PAYMENT 08/21/2024 990120322 $2,990.38 INSTATAX P05 TAX PAYMENT 08/30/2024 990120323 $60,249.92 INSTATAX P05 TAX PAYMENT 08/30/2024 990120323 $3,473.18 INSTATAX P05 TAX PAYMENT 08/30/2024 990120323 $11,716.74 INSTATAX P05 TAX PAYMENT 08/30/2024 990120323 $23,170.91 INSTATAX P05 TAX PAYMENT 08/30/2024 990120323 $2,592.60 FIDELITY SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SEP 24-VISION 09/06/2024 107220 $512.74 PAYMENTUS CORPORATION JULY 24 CC FEES 08/23/2024 107154 $800.83 SELF INSURED SERVICES COMPANY SEPTEMEBER 24-DENTAL 09/06/2024 9001662 $3,046.80 SELF INSURED SERVICES COMPANY SEPTEMBER 24-LIFE&ADD 08/29/2024 9001649 $1,276.28 SELF INSURED SERVICES COMPANY SEPTEMBER 24-SUPP LIFE 08/29/2024 9001649 $350.75 SELF INSURED SERVICES COMPANY SEPTEMBER 24-LTD 08/29/2024 9001649 $1,166.79 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC JULY PPD LEGAL 08/23/2024 107157 $25.90 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC AUG 24 PPD LEGAL 08/23/2024 107157 $25.90 CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. JUL 24- INSPECTION/REVIEW 09/06/2024 9001670 $3,205.00 CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. AUG 24- INSPECTION/REVIEW 09/06/2024 9001670 $1,390.00 ERIN HENSON RFND: FCCC-08/03/24 08/29/2024 107185 $500.00 SONYA PERL SURVIVORS TRUST PROJECT FEE REFUND: APNs 298-010-31/32 08/29/2024 107197 $27,000.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $238,791.87
1005100 - CITY COUNCIL
SAN DIEGUITO RIVER PARK JPA FY 24-25-SAN DIEGUITO RIVER PARK JPA 08/29/2024 107194 $90,466.00 US BANK CLOSED SESSION SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $151.67 US BANK CLOSED SESSION SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $5.55 US BANK CLOSED SESSION SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $195.23 US BANK CITY MANAGER SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $5.55
Page: 2 of 11
TOTAL CITY COUNCIL $90,824.00
1005150 - CITY CLERK
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP JUL 24-ELECTION SERVICES 09/06/2024 107210 $595.00 US BANK TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES 08/29/2024 107179 $36.75 US BANK IIMC MEMBERSHIP 08/29/2024 107179 $60.00
US BANK IIMC TRAINING ""MIND EDGE"" 08/29/2024 107179 $95.00 US BANK OFFICE SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $166.88
US BANK NOTICE OF ELECTION TRANSLATION (4) 08/29/2024 107179 $907.56 US BANK SIGNATURE STAMP 08/29/2024 107179 $34.32
US BANK OFFICE SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $57.62
US BANK EMAIL ENCRYPTION SERVICE 08/29/2024 107179 $22.50 US BANK PRIME CHARGE 08/29/2024 107179 $9.99
US BANK TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 08/29/2024 107179 $48.25
US BANK PACKING SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $107.75
US BANK CCA MEMBERSHIP 08/29/2024 107179 $250.00
FEDEX MAILING-08/07/24 09/06/2024 107219 $29.36
GRANICUS INC GRANICUS - RECORDS REQUEST SOFTWARE 08/23/2024 107143 $5,205.23 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT, INC JUL 24 - STORAGE 09/06/2024 107216 $1,227.45 EL LATINO NEWSPAPER ELECTION NOTICE AD 09/06/2024 107218 $660.00 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL SHIPPING TAPE/AIR DUSTERS/PAPER/BINDER CLIPS 09/06/2024 107225 $357.89 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL PENS 09/06/2024 107225 $42.17 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL BATTERIES/FILE FOLDERS 09/06/2024 107225 $85.77 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL SCISSORS/DESK PAD 09/06/2024 107225 $63.68 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL ANT KILLER/NOTEBOOK/BINDERS 09/06/2024 107225 $72.90 KFORCE INC. TEMP SERVICE-07/04/24 09/06/2024 9001666 $600.00 KFORCE INC. TEMP SERVICE-07/11/24 09/06/2024 9001666 $1,280.00 KFORCE INC. TEMP SERVICE-07/18/24 09/06/2024 9001666 $320.00 KFORCE INC. TEMP SERVICE-07/25/24 09/06/2024 9001666 $760.00 KFORCE INC. TEMP SERVICE-08/08/24 09/06/2024 9001666 $646.80 KFORCE INC. TEMP SERVICE-08/15/24 09/06/2024 9001666 $520.00 KFORCE INC. TEMP SERVICE-08/22/24 09/06/2024 9001666 $800.00 TOTAL CITY CLERK $15,062.87
1005200 - CITY MANAGER
US BANK COUCH 08/29/2024 107179 $761.23
US BANK PENS 08/29/2024 107179 $18.38
US BANK WALL ART HANGING SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $10.76 US BANK LUNCH WITH CARLSBAD CM 08/29/2024 107179 $48.31 US BANK GCC 2024 ANNUAL MEETING 08/29/2024 107179 $75.00 US BANK CCEC CONVENTION 08/29/2024 107179 $451.84
TOTAL CITY MANAGER $1,365.52
1005250 - LEGAL SERVICES
HOGAN LAW APC JUNE 24 LEGAL SERVICES 08/29/2024 107189 $3,022.50 TOTAL LEGAL SERVICES $3,022.50
1005300 - FINANCE
US BANK TRAINING MATERIALS 08/29/2024 107179 $2,501.63
WILLDAN USER FEE STUDY & COST ALLOCATION PLAN 08/23/2024 9001648 $9,341.00 HDL COREN & CONE FY24 ACFR STAT PACKAGE 08/29/2024 9001651 $695.00 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-DESK FOOTREST 09/06/2024 9001661 $32.29 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-OFFICE CHAIR 09/06/2024 9001661 $217.49 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-GLOVES/HEADPHONES 09/06/2024 9001661 $42.50 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-HIGHLIGHTER/DESKPAD 09/06/2024 9001661 $54.03 Page: 3 of 11
AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-RECEIPT BOOK 09/06/2024 9001661 $33.00 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-CUSTOM STAMP 09/06/2024 9001661 $16.14 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL MAY 24 OFFICE CHAIR 09/06/2024 107225 ($311.88) TOTAL FINANCE $12,621.20
1005350 - SUPPORT SERVICES
XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24-XEROX -UPSTAIRS 08/23/2024 107167 $255.11 XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24-XEROX -UPSTAIRS 08/23/2024 107167 $298.25 XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24-XEROX -PLN 08/23/2024 107167 $75.60 XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24-XEROX -PLN 08/23/2024 107167 $546.78 XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24-XEROX -CLK 08/23/2024 107167 $370.48 XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24-XEROX -CLK 08/23/2024 107167 $271.68 XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24 XEROX FIERY -CLK 08/23/2024 107167 $122.84 XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24 -XEROX FIERY - UPSTAIRS 08/23/2024 107167 $132.61 XEROX CORPORATION JUL 24-XEROX FIERY - PLN 08/23/2024 107167 $132.61 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-COFFEE PODS/SPOONS 09/06/2024 9001661 $110.80 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-COFFEE CREAMER/FORKS 09/06/2024 9001661 $78.76 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-LABEL MAKER/LABEL TAPE 09/06/2024 9001661 $76.43 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-BOWLS/PLATES 09/06/2024 9001661 $85.90 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-FOLDERS 09/06/2024 9001661 $33.76 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-COFFEE PODS 09/06/2024 9001661 $78.27 TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES $2,669.88
1005400 - HUMAN RESOURCES
US BANK APPRECIATION GIFT 08/29/2024 107179 $163.11
US BANK SECURE FAX SUBSCRIPTION 08/29/2024 107179 $49.99 US BANK SYMPATHY FLOWERS 08/29/2024 107179 $106.09
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JUL 24-FINGERPRINT APP 08/29/2024 107182 $64.00 ROBERT MCPHEE TUITION REIMBURSE 08/23/2024 107159 $2,000.00 TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $2,383.19
1005450 - INFORMATION SERVICES
COX COMMUNICATIONS INC 0013410039730701-08/19/24-09/18/24 08/29/2024 107180 $321.77 CDW GOVERNMENT INC KEYBOARD 08/29/2024 9001650 $167.05
US BANK CONSTANT CONTACT 08/29/2024 107179 $105.26
US BANK DOMAIN RENEWAL 08/29/2024 107179 $52.38
US BANK MISAC CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 08/29/2024 107179 $675.00 US BANK MISAC MEMBERSHIP 08/29/2024 107179 $130.00
VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 670601022-00001-06/24/24-07/23/24 08/29/2024 107200 $128.05 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-PHONE CORD DETANGLER 09/06/2024 9001661 $21.72 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-PHONE CORDS 09/06/2024 9001661 $45.63 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-PHONE CORD 09/06/2024 9001661 $27.56 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-JACKS/PASS

THROUGHS/PANELS/CORDS
09/06/2024 9001661 $774.76
AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-TV WALL MOUNT 09/06/2024 9001661 $59.37 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-SMART TV 09/06/2024 9001661 $321.36 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-CABLES 09/06/2024 9001661 $108.70 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-MOUNTING KIT 09/06/2024 9001661 $289.14 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-ETHERNET PATCH CABLE 09/06/2024 9001661 $20.51 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-ETHERNET CABLES 09/06/2024 9001661 $39.99 TOTAL INFORMATION SERVICES $3,288.25
1005550 - PLANNING
US BANK SIDE TABLE 08/29/2024 107179 $130.49
AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-PENS/AIR VENT DEFLECTOR 09/06/2024 9001661 $16.45 Page: 4 of 11
TOTAL PLANNING $146.94
1005560 - BUILDING SERVICES
AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-OFFICE CHAIR 09/06/2024 9001661 $292.54 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-PENS/AIR VENT DEFLECTOR 09/06/2024 9001661 $25.69 TOTAL BUILDING SERVICES $318.23
1005590 - CODE ENFORCEMENT
US BANK CAR WASHES (3) 08/29/2024 107179 $30.00
US BANK MISC SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $14.00
US BANK CODE DEPART FRIDGE 08/29/2024 107179 $303.08
VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 442224168-0001-06/24/24-07/23/24 08/29/2024 107200 $141.29 TOTAL CODE ENFORCEMENT $488.37
1006120 - FIRE DEPARTMENT
US BANK BOLTS 08/29/2024 107179 $12.31
US BANK FIRE STATION SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $457.51 US BANK SMALL EQUIPMENT 08/29/2024 107179 $1,503.62
US BANK AIR PRESSURE ATTACHMENTS 08/29/2024 107179 $133.24 US BANK FIRE SPARKY COSTUME 08/29/2024 107179 $494.04
CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO 08/01-09/30 CULLIGAN REVERSE OSMOSIS 08/23/2024 107138 $99.07 ACE UNIFORMS LLC UNIFORM 08/23/2024 9001638 $378.86
VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 962428212-00001-06/29/24-07/28/24 08/29/2024 107200 $729.00 CITY OF ENCINITAS FY24 FIRE RESOURCE SHARE OF COST-TECH

SUP/TRAINING
08/23/2024 107136 $4,237.38
CITY OF ENCINITAS FY24 FIRE RESOURCE SHARE OF COST-TECH

SUP/TRAINING
08/23/2024 107136 $59.99
PARKHOUSE TIRE INC T#237-TIRES 08/23/2024 107152 $2,217.46 REGIONAL COMMS SYS, MS 056 - RCS JUL 24-FIRE RADIOS 08/29/2024 107192 $1,298.00 REGIONAL COMMS SYS, MS 056 - RCS JUL 24-SHERIFF RADIOS 08/29/2024 107192 $796.50 REGIONAL COMMS SYS, MS 056 - RCS JUL 24-CAP CODE 08/29/2024 107192 $32.50 FIRE STATS, LLC JUL 24-MAINT & OPERATION 08/29/2024 107187 $212.50 WEX BANK JUL 24-FUEL & CR TAX 08/29/2024 107202 $1,728.90 SPOT ON STITCHING EMBROIDERY EMBROIDERED LOGO HAT 08/29/2024 107198 $53.00 NORTH COUNTY DISPATCH (JPA) FY24 CAD LICENSE AND MAINTENCE 08/29/2024 107191 $1,398.96 NORTH COUNTY DISPATCH (JPA) FY25 QTR 1 NORTH COUNTY DISPATCH 08/23/2024 107150 $45,535.80 LINEGEAR FIRE & RESCUE EQUIPMENT STRUCTURE FIRE GLOVES 08/23/2024 107148 $4,456.57 TOTAL FIRE DEPARTMENT $65,835.21
1006130 - ANIMAL CONTROL
HABITAT PROTECTION, INC AUG 24 - DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 08/23/2024 9001642 $160.00 TOTAL ANIMAL CONTROL $160.00
1006170 - MARINE SAFETY
CAMEO PAPER & JANITORIAL SUPPLY INC PAPER TOWELS 08/23/2024 107134 $78.74 US BANK SCHEDULING SOFTWARE 08/29/2024 107179 $242.20
US BANK LAPEL MICS (2) 08/29/2024 107179 $38.93
US BANK BINOCULARS (2) 08/29/2024 107179 $280.13
US BANK SWIFTWATER HELMETS 08/29/2024 107179 $1,002.15
US BANK SENIOR STAFF POLOS 08/29/2024 107179 $1,056.52
US BANK SUNGLASSES 08/29/2024 107179 $80.81
US BANK OFFICE SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $137.53
US BANK SPRAY PAINT/SMALL TOOLS 08/29/2024 107179 $72.99 US BANK WATER TEMP THERMOMETER 08/29/2024 107179 $33.55 US BANK REGIONAL MEETING SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $95.42 US BANK MISC DEPT SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $29.81
Page: 5 of 11
US BANK MEDICAL SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $291.99
US BANK MEDICAL SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $65.00
US BANK WETSUIT 08/29/2024 107179 $353.44
US BANK POWERSTRIP 08/29/2024 107179 $34.25
CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO AUG 24- EQUIPMENT-MS 08/29/2024 107181 $56.89 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 962428212-00001-06/29/24-07/28/24 08/29/2024 107200 $152.04 GLOBE AIRCRAFT COMPANY REFLECTIVE LIFEGUARD GRAPHIC APPLICATION 08/29/2024 107188 $247.83 AT&T CALNET 3 9391019469-06/20/24-07/19/24 08/29/2024 107170 $33.59 AT&T CALNET 3 9391019469-07/20/24-08/19/24 08/29/2024 107171 $37.05 AT&T CALNET 3 2022 PAST DUE INVOICE 08/29/2024 107172 $108.85 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012281-06/25/21-07/24/21 08/29/2024 107173 $95.60 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012281-07/25/21-08/24/21 08/29/2024 107174 $87.48 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012281-01/25/22-02/24/22 08/29/2024 107175 $65.99 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012281-02/25/22-03/24/22 08/29/2024 107176 $66.01 TOTAL MARINE SAFETY $4,844.79
1006510 - ENGINEERING
US BANK APWA PWX 08/29/2024 107179 $569.00
US BANK APWA PWX 08/29/2024 107179 $1,118.00
US BANK APWA FLIGHT 08/29/2024 107179 $408.95
US BANK APWA FLIGHT 08/29/2024 107179 $347.96
US BANK APWA LUNCHEON 08/29/2024 107179 $30.00
US BANK PLAN STORAGE TUBES 08/29/2024 107179 $192.36
VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-00001 - 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107165 $53.07 BUSINESS PRINTING COMPANY INC BUSINESS CARDS 08/29/2024 107178 $127.00 BUSINESS PRINTING COMPANY INC BUSINESS CARDS 08/29/2024 107178 $2.32 WEST COAST CIVIL, INC JUL 24-CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES 08/29/2024 107201 $3,800.00 5 ELEMENTS FIRE & WATERSCAPES, INC. HWY 101 FOUNTAIN REPAIRS- LIGHT CORD SEAL 08/23/2024 107129 $3,865.00 5 ELEMENTS FIRE & WATERSCAPES, INC. HWY 101 FOUNTAIN REPAIRS - TILE PREP 08/23/2024 107129 $16,300.00 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH FY 25-SUBSCRIPTION 08/29/2024 107186 $2,090.00 TOTAL ENGINEERING $28,903.66
1006520 - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC FY25 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 09/06/2024 107222 $14.80 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $15.14 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $18.43 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $15.14 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT MOVEABLE 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $217.19 MIKHAIL OGAWA ENGINEERING, INC. JUL 24- STORMWATER PROGRAM 08/29/2024 9001654 $8,275.96 BOOT WORLD, INC. FY25 PROTECTIVE FOOTWEAR 08/23/2024 107133 $198.73 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-00001 - 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107165 $53.06 CLEAN EARTH ENVIROMENTAL SOLUTIONS JUL 24- HHW COLLECTION 09/06/2024 107215 $2,492.00 IDRAINS LLC STORM DRAIN MAINTENCE / O-STORM 08/23/2024 107130 $1,340.00 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES $12,640.45
1006530 - STREET MAINTENANCE
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC FY25 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 09/06/2024 107222 $24.07 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $24.60 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $29.95 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $24.60 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC EAR PROTECTORS/GLOVES/SAFETY VEST/BOLT SWIVEL 09/06/2024 107217 $155.78 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC FLY TRAPS 09/06/2024 107217 $17.61 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC CHLORINE DISPENSER/CHLORINE TABS 08/23/2024 107141 $75.02 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC WIRE CONNECTOR/SCREWDRIVER SLOT/VELCRO 08/29/2024 107183 $14.45 Page: 6 of 11
STRIPS
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT VIA DE LA VALLE 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $91.05 SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-07/01/24-08/06/24 08/29/2024 107195 $467.15 SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-07/06/24-08/06/24 08/29/2024 107195 $1,002.03 US BANK PAINT 08/29/2024 107179 $414.29
US BANK TIRES 08/29/2024 107179 $681.16
BOOT WORLD, INC. FY25 PROTECTIVE FOOTWEAR 08/23/2024 107133 $14.84 BOOT WORLD, INC. BOOTS 09/06/2024 107212 $169.66
VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-00001 - 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107165 $53.06 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA JUL 24 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE SERVICES 08/23/2024 9001643 $1,504.95 TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE $4,764.27
1006540 - TRAFFIC SAFETY
SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-07/01/24-08/06/24 08/29/2024 107195 $562.43 SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-07/06/24-08/06/24 08/29/2024 107195 $1,260.62 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-00001 - 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107165 $37.90 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012279-07/24/24-08/23/24 09/06/2024 107207 $66.86 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012277-12/24/23-01/23/24-PO 224-39 09/06/2024 107208 $18.48 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012279-12/24/23-01/23/24- PO 224-39 09/06/2024 107209 $62.98 YUNEX LLC JUL 24-TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT/REPAI 08/29/2024 9001659 $1,120.00 TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY $3,129.27
1006550 - STREET CLEANING
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT VIA DE LA VALLE 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $53.48 TOTAL STREET CLEANING $53.48
1006560 - PARK MAINTENANCE
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC FY25 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 09/06/2024 107222 $17.59 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $17.98 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $21.88 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $17.98 RANCHO SANTA FE SECURITY SYS INC SEP 24-ALARM MONITORING 09/06/2024 107223 $331.20 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC ANT KILLER/SUPER GLUE/THREAD LOCKER 09/06/2024 107217 $35.96 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC GLOVES 09/06/2024 107217 $21.52 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC NITRILE GLOVES 08/23/2024 107141 $21.52 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC PUTTY/SHEET METAL SCREWS 08/23/2024 107141 $46.95 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC LOCK PLIERS/ STEEL PIPE WRENCH 08/23/2024 107141 $57.24 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC DIA .25IN POLYETHYLENE PIPE 08/23/2024 107141 $3.10 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC HEX BOLTS/NUTS/LOCK WASHERS 08/29/2024 107183 $1.51 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC ROCK SALT 08/29/2024 107183 $39.12 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-018 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $317.55 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-019 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $144.53 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-021 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $2,896.50 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-005-06/04/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $449.26 W.W. GRAINGER, INC SCREWS 09/06/2024 9001664 $5.80
W.W. GRAINGER, INC SPRINKLER VALVES/HOSE SWIVEL 08/23/2024 9001641 $54.20 NAPA AUTO PARTS INC BATTERY/FEES 08/29/2024 107190 $233.65 US BANK JULY 4TH RESTROOM RENTALS 08/29/2024 107179 $450.66 US BANK JULY 4TH RESTROOM RENTALS 08/29/2024 107179 $1,032.64 US BANK TRASH CAN LINERS 08/29/2024 107179 $161.43
US BANK BOLTS 08/29/2024 107179 $14.45
BOOT WORLD, INC. FY25 PROTECTIVE FOOTWEAR 08/23/2024 107133 $550.00 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-00001 - 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107165 $75.81 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA JUL 24- MAINTENANCE PEST 08/23/2024 9001643 $2,772.00 Page: 7 of 11
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA JUL 24 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE SERVICES 08/23/2024 9001643 $9,871.53 HD SUPPLY, INC. CLOROX/TRASH LINERS 08/23/2024 107144 $1,329.07 TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE $20,992.63
1006570 - PUBLIC FACILITIES
DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC TAPE/SCREWS/PIPE ELBOW 09/06/2024 107217 $41.69 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC P-TRAP/THREADED TUBE/SAW BLADE 09/06/2024 107217 $54.78 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC PAINT BRUSHES/LYSOL WIPES 08/29/2024 107183 $24.64 SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-07/01/24-08/06/24 08/29/2024 107195 $3,356.20 SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-07/06/24-08/06/24 08/29/2024 107195 $9,428.95 LEE'S LOCK & SAFE INC KEYS/PIN # 09/06/2024 107221 $60.73 US BANK PRINTER TONER 08/29/2024 107179 $167.46
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA JUL 24 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE SERVICES 08/23/2024 9001643 $3,338.00 CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 FIRST AID SUPPLIES-CH 09/06/2024 107213 $555.38 STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY SINK DRAIN/ELBOW JOINTS/PIPE WRAP 08/29/2024 107199 $79.15 STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY M-PACT SYSTEM VALVE 08/23/2024 107162 $153.01 CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC JUL 24-JANITORIAL/CUSTODIAL SV 08/23/2024 9001639 $300.00 24 HOUR ELEVATOR, INC ELEVATOR PREVENTATIVE MAINT/REPAIR 08/23/2024 107128 $204.20 REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES INC FY25 ON-CALL AS-NEEDED HANDYMAN 09/06/2024 107226 $690.00 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $18,454.19
1007100 - COMMUNITY SERVICES
US BANK SOCIAL MEDIA FILMING EQUIPMENT 08/29/2024 107179 $220.75 US BANK SOCIAL MEDIA MICROPHONE 08/29/2024 107179 $20.46 KAYLA MOSHKI REIMB - CAPIO CONF 05/2024 09/06/2024 9001665 $224.70 TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES $465.91
1007110 - GF-RECREATION
ABLE PATROL & GUARD, INC AUG 24-FCCC GAURD SRVC 09/06/2024 107204 $297.00 ALIANAS PARTY RENTALS DIA DE LOS MUERTOS RENTALS 08/23/2024 107131 $1,075.00 CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC AUG 24-FC CLEANING 09/06/2024 9001663 $300.00 CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC FCCC CLEANING- REMAINING BAL INV#4825 09/06/2024 9001663 $60.00 TOTAL GF-RECREATION $1,732.00
1205460 - SELF INSURANCE RETENTION
GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC. GL CLAIMS SERVICES - JULY 24 08/23/2024 9001640 $224.40 BICKMORE ACTUARIAL FY 25-ACTUARIAL REVIEW 09/06/2024 107211 $2,600.00 DEAN GAZZO ROISTACHER LLP 2308.MACDONALD PROF SVC - JULY 24 08/23/2024 107139 $1,336.32 TOTAL SELF INSURANCE RETENTION $4,160.72
1255465 - WORKERS COMPENSATION
CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP INC. FY25 CLAIMS SERVICES - MEDICARE AGENT

REPORTING
08/23/2024 107137 $250.00
CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP INC. FY25 CLAIMS SERVICES - FNOL FEES 08/23/2024 107137 $74.00 CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP INC. FY25 CLAIMS SERVICES - ANNUAL ADMIN FEE 08/23/2024 107137 $10,350.00 CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP INC. FY25 CLAIMS SERVICES - JULY 08/23/2024 107137 $229.00 PINNACOL ASSURANCE FY25 WORKERS COMP INS/CO 08/23/2024 107155 $945.00 TOTAL WORKERS COMPENSATION $11,848.00
1356170 - ASSET REPLACEMENT-MARN SFTY
US BANK TRUCK TOOLBOX 08/29/2024 107179 $1,105.46
TOTAL ASSET REPLACEMENT-MARN SFTY $1,105.46
1356510 - ASSET REPLACEMENT-ENGINEER
SHULTZ AUDIO VIDEO MARINE SAFETY AUDIO REPLACEMENT 08/29/2024 107196 $4,979.37 TOTAL ASSET REPLACEMENT-ENGINEER $4,979.37
1605360 - OPEB OBLIGATION
Page: 8 of 11
MIDAMERICA SEPTEMEBER 24 09/06/2024 9001668 $9,095.00
TOTAL OPEB OBLIGATION $9,095.00
2026510 - GAS TAX-ENGINEERING
YUNEX LLC 9330.01 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVE 08/29/2024 9001659 $2,883.29 TOTAL GAS TAX-ENGINEERING $2,883.29
2037510 - HIGHWAY 101 LANDSC #33
SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-07/06/24-08/06/24 08/29/2024 107195 $2,897.95 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA JUL 24 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE SERVICES 08/23/2024 9001643 $1,803.79 TOTAL HIGHWAY 101 LANDSC #33 $4,701.74
2047520 - MID 9C SANTA FE HILLS
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-014 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $1,072.93 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-015 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $621.39 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-016 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $718.45 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-017 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $48.81 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-018 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $150.09 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-019 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $538.33 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-020 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $946.33 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-021 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $1,752.35 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-022 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $1,465.39 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-023 07/02/23-08/01/23 08/23/2024 107161 $1,347.23 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-024 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $1,161.55 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-025 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $874.59 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-026 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $1,013.85 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-006-06/04/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $1,852.22 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-007-06/04/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $1,747.82 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-009-06/04/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $1,121.42 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-010-06/04/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $632.71 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-011-06/04/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $708.11 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-012-06/04/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $157.11 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-029-06/15/24-08/15/24 09/06/2024 107224 $1,063.42 SANTA FE HILLS HOA JUL 24-FY25 SANTA FE HILLS HOA MID 08/23/2024 9001644 $18,625.00 TOTAL MID 9C SANTA FE HILLS $37,619.10
2057530 - MID 9E ISLA VERDE
ISLA VERDE HOA JUL 24-FY25 ISLA VERDE HOA MID 08/23/2024 107145 $433.33 TOTAL MID 9E ISLA VERDE $433.33
2077550 - MID 9H SAN ELIJO #2
SAN ELIJO HILLS II HOA JULY-FY25 SAN ELIJO HOA MID 08/23/2024 107160 $11,100.00 TOTAL MID 9H SAN ELIJO #2 $11,100.00
2087580 - COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINT
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-020 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $2,377.66 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA JUL 24 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE SERVICES 08/23/2024 9001643 $7,240.55 TOTAL COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINT $9,618.21
2117600 - STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-07/01/24-08/06/24 08/29/2024 107195 $9,147.03 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-00001 - 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107165 $15.16 TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT $9,162.19
2135550 - DEVELOPER PASS-THRU- PLANNING
LAURIE LEVINE JULY 24 09/06/2024 9001667 $262.50
LAURIE LEVINE JULY 24 09/06/2024 9001667 $350.00
LAURIE LEVINE JULY 24 09/06/2024 9001667 $481.25
Page: 9 of 11
LAURIE LEVINE JULY 24 09/06/2024 9001667 $262.50
TOTAL DEVELOPER PASS-THRU- PLANNING $1,356.25
2256510 - RTCIP
YUNEX LLC 9330.01 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVE 08/29/2024 9001659 $2,151.71 TOTAL RTCIP $2,151.71
2465200 - MISC GRANTS - CM
US BANK RSWA-EEP MISC SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $9.01
SOLANA CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SB1383 FOOD RECOVERY TA & OUTREACH/PO224-168 08/29/2024 9001656 $1,260.96 SOLANA CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SB1383 FOOD RECOVERY TA & OUTREACH/PO224-168 08/29/2024 9001656 $146.04 REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES INC FY25 ON-CALL AS-NEEDED HANDYMAN 09/06/2024 107226 $2,845.00 REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES INC FY25 ON-CALL AS-NEEDED HANDYMAN 09/06/2024 107226 $2,155.00 TOTAL MISC GRANTS - CM $6,416.01
2505570 - COASTAL BUSINESS/VISITORS
DEL MAR BLUE PRINT COMPANY, INC. SPONSER BOARD FOR MOVIE NIGHT 08/23/2024 107140 $70.25 US BANK MOVIE NIGHT LICENSE 08/29/2024 107179 $415.00
EMBROIDERY IMAGE COMMISSIONER EVENT SHIRTS 08/23/2024 107142 $289.14 CHRISTINE ANTONELLI MOVIE NIGHT SUPPLIES 08/23/2024 107132 $72.44 SAM CASTELLANO SOUND EQUIP/TECH - 10.19.2024 DIAS DE LOS

MUERTOS
08/23/2024 107135 $750.00
PLATINUM EVENTS INC MOVIE NIGHT RENTAL EQUIP-08/10/24 08/23/2024 107156 $2,030.27 TOTAL COASTAL BUSINESS/VISITORS $3,627.10
2556180 - CAMP PROGRAMS
US BANK DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES 08/29/2024 107179 $19.74
US BANK JG OFFICE TRAILER RENT 08/29/2024 107179 $446.29 US BANK COLORED PAPER 08/29/2024 107179 $14.34
US BANK JG BOARD FINS 08/29/2024 107179 $50.75
US BANK BUOYS 08/29/2024 107179 $204.00
US BANK JG CALENDAR SERVICE 08/29/2024 107179 $12.00
US BANK DAY CAMP ADMISSIONS 08/29/2024 107179 $931.00
US BANK DAY CAMP ADMISSIONS 08/29/2024 107179 $731.00
US BANK DAY CAMP ADMISSIONS 08/29/2024 107179 $665.48
US BANK JG WOMENS SUITS 08/29/2024 107179 $221.87
US BANK JG SUNBLOCK 08/29/2024 107179 $147.90
US BANK JG PADLOCKS 08/29/2024 107179 $68.48
US BANK JG STORAGE CONTAINER 08/29/2024 107179 $645.42
US BANK JG BOARDS 08/29/2024 107179 $347.96
US BANK JG BOUYS 08/29/2024 107179 $245.50
US BANK BUOYS 08/29/2024 107179 $1,395.00
US BANK DAY CAMP ADMISSIONS 08/29/2024 107179 $1,588.00 WESS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CAMP TRANSPORTATION - 07/31/24 08/23/2024 107166 $691.88 WESS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CAMP TRANSPORTATION - 07/24/24 08/23/2024 107166 $691.88 WESS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CAMP TRANSPORTATION - 07/17/24 08/23/2024 107166 $691.88 WESS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CAMP TRANSPORTATION - 07/10/24 08/23/2024 107166 $691.88 TOTAL CAMP PROGRAMS $10,502.25
2706120 - PUBLIC SAFETY- FIRE
US BANK UPS RETURN CHARGE MDC MOUNTS 08/29/2024 107179 $30.79 US BANK MDC SP RAM MOUNTS REFUND 08/29/2024 107179 ($135.92) US BANK CEILING TILES 08/29/2024 107179 $949.33
ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR STRIKETM-VISTA FIRE-07/10/24-07/21/24 08/29/2024 107184 $804.12 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 962428212-00001-06/29/24-07/28/24 08/29/2024 107200 $114.03 RYAN PESTER STRIKETM-REIMB:PARK FIRE CFAA-07/30/24-08/17/24 08/29/2024 107193 $479.59 Page: 10 of 11
ZACHARY TOTH VISTA FIRE CFAA REIMBURSABLE 08/23/2024 107163 $243.42 RANCHO SANTA FE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CSA-17 PROTOCOL UPDATE CLASSES 08/23/2024 107158 $213.28 RANCHO SANTA FE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CSA-17 PROTOCOL UPDATE CLASSES 08/23/2024 107158 $426.56 BLACK BOX SAFETY, INC CSA17 BODY ARMOR 08/29/2024 107177 $13,734.69 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY- FIRE $16,859.89
4506190 - SAND REPLNSHMNT/RETENTION
WARWICK GROUP CONSULTANTS, LLC JUL 24- CONSULTING SERVICES 08/29/2024 9001658 $5,833.00 SUMMIT ENVIROMENTAL GROUP, INC. SPECIALTY PLANNING SERVICES SAND/SCOUP/LCP 08/23/2024 9001646 $3,920.00 TOTAL SAND REPLNSHMNT/RETENTION $9,753.00
4595450 - MISC.CAPITALPROJECTS-IS
AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-MICROPHONE 09/06/2024 9001661 $75.04 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC 16ML-6YT6-6RCP-MINI CONVERTER HD 09/06/2024 9001661 $677.80 TOTAL MISC.CAPITALPROJECTS-IS $752.84
4595550 - MISC. CAPITAL PROJECTS
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY 24 HOUSING/SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001653 $639.18 A PREMAN ROOFING INC FCCC ROOF REPLACEMENT CONTINGE 09/06/2024 107203 ($504.24) SONYA PERL SURVIVORS TRUST PROJECT FEE REFUND: APNs 298-010-31/32 08/29/2024 107197 $13,722.00 TOTAL MISC. CAPITAL PROJECTS $13,856.94
4596510 - MISC.CAPITALPROJECTS-ENG
VAN DYKE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS JUL 24 LA COLONIA MASTER PLAN UPDATE 08/23/2024 107164 $520.33 A PREMAN ROOFING INC FCCC ROOF REPLACEMENT CONTINGE 09/06/2024 107203 $10,084.73 TOTAL MISC.CAPITALPROJECTS-ENG $10,605.06
4596520 - MISC CAPITAL PROJ - ENVIR
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO AUG 23 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $2,159.31 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SEP 23 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $2,801.82 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO OCT 23 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $1,420.35 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO NOV 23 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $1,670.90 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO DEC 23 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $933.71 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO JAN 24 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $4,951.10 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO FEB 24 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $1,732.63 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO MAR 24 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $933.02 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO APR 24 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $6,752.54 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO MAY 24 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 08/29/2024 9001657 $4,850.96 TOTAL MISC CAPITAL PROJ - ENVIR $28,206.34
4728520 - PACIFIC UNDERGROUNDNG-CIP
NV5, INC. PROF SVC - PACFIC AVENUE-PHASE 13 08/23/2024 107151 $3,062.50 TOTAL PACIFIC UNDERGROUNDNG-CIP $3,062.50
5097700 - SANITATION
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC FY25 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 09/06/2024 107222 $9.26 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $9.46 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $11.52 MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 08/23/2024 107149 $9.46 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-008-06/04/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $98.51 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT MOVEABLE 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107161 $651.59 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-00001 - 07/02/24-08/01/24 08/23/2024 107165 $15.16 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012277-07/24/24-08/23/24 09/06/2024 107206 $20.13 US BANK ADMIN FEE - SEPJA 2017 REV BOND 08/23/2024 9001647 $1,302.50 IDRAINS LLC PREVENTIVE JETTER SERVICE 08/23/2024 107130 $525.00 IDRAINS LLC PREVENTIVE DRAIN SERVICE - FIRE DEPT 08/23/2024 107130 $525.00 IDRAINS LLC PREVENTIVE JETTER SV - LC CMTY CTR 08/23/2024 107130 $525.00 Page: 11 of 11
IDRAINS LLC PREVENTIVE JETTER SERVICE - LIFEGUARD STN 08/23/2024 107130 $525.00 IDRAINS LLC FY25-R LINE DRAIN CLEANING 09/06/2024 107205 $525.00 IDRAINS LLC O- VIDEO INSPECTIONS 09/06/2024 107205 $2,030.00 IDRAINS LLC E- SEWER CLEANING 09/06/2024 107205 $6,434.19 SONYA PERL SURVIVORS TRUST PROJECT FEE REFUND: APNs 298-010-31/32 08/29/2024 107197 $24,975.00 SONYA PERL SURVIVORS TRUST PROJECT FEE REFUND: APNs 298-010-31/32 08/29/2024 107197 $13,486.00 SONYA PERL SURVIVORS TRUST PROJECT FEE REFUND: APNs 298-010-31/32 08/29/2024 107197 $11,489.00 US BANK WW REF 2017 INTEREST DUE 09/01 09/03/2024 9001660 $87,003.13 TOTAL SANITATION $150,169.91
REPORT TOTAL: $896,984.89
COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.2.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Fire Department – Josh Gordon, Fire Chief SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Resolution 2024-095 Accepting 2023 State Homeland Security Program Grant
Funds for Firefighting Equipment
BACKGROUND:

Activities implemented under State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) grants must support terrorism preparedness by building or enhancing capabilities that relate to the prevention of, protection from, response to, and recovery from, terrorism in order to be considered eligible. Many capabilities which support terrorism preparedness simultaneously support preparedness for other hazards and catastrophic incidents. The activities must also align with the national, state, and urban area strategic objectives.

Firefighting hoods are a type of personal protective equipment used by firefighters to protect the parts of the head not covered by the helmet and face mask. The hoods are made from fire and heat resistant materials, which allows for protection against radiant and intense heat. Gas monitors are used for inert gas operations to detect combustible gases in oxygen-free environments, including natural gas leaks.

This item is before the City Council to request approval of Resolution 2024-095 (Attachment 1) accepting $9,409 in 2023 State Homeland Security Program grant funds for the purchase of firefighting hoods and gas monitors.

DISCUSSION:

The City is directly receiving a total of $9,409 awarded through the County of San Diego under SHSP for Federal Fiscal Year 2023 (Attachment 2). The funding allocated to the City will enhance its preparedness, prevention, and response capabilities. The SHSP grant funds can only be expended on equipment authorized for purchase by the September 25, 2024
2023 SHSP Grant Award

Department of Homeland Security. The City will apply the $9,409 of the funds from the 2023 program to purchase firefighting hoods and gas monitors.

This Federal grant is a reimbursement grant and requires the City to expend funds prior to requesting reimbursement. Under SHSP, expenditures must be made by the grant recipient and the reimbursement requested from the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services. The deadline to expend funds and request reimbursement is May 31, 2025. The City anticipates purchasing the equipment by December and submitting for reimbursement to the County of San Diego OES before the May 2025 deadline.

The State of California administers the grant and requires all grant recipients to adhere to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs, which outlines policies and regulations pertaining to the use of federal grant funds (Attachment 3).

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: N/A.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City is not required to provide any matching funds or cost share for grants under SHSP; nor is it required to fund the replacement of grant funded equipment in the future (at the end of its useful life). Staff does not anticipate incurring any significant increase in costs for maintaining the equipment during its lifespan.

A budget amendment is needed in the Misc. Grants Fund to record the expected grant revenue and related expenditure amount of $9,409.

WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Approve Staff recommendation with alternative amendments / modifications. • Deny Staff recommendation and provide further direction to Staff.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution 2024-095:

1. Accepting $9,409 in federal funds from a 2023 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) grant awarded to the City of Solana Beach for the purchase of firefighting hoods and gas monitors.

2. Authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to sign and submit the required California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs.

September 25, 2024
2023 SHSP Grant Award

3. Approving a budget amendment of $9,409 to the Misc. Grant Fund - Federal Grants revenue account 246-46600 and the Minor Equipment expenditure account 2466120-64190.

4. Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget accordingly.
________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2024-095

2. FY 2023 San Diego County Office of Emergency Services Award Letter to Jurisdictions

3. California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

4. FY 2023 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) Grant Approved Allocation RESOLUTION 2024-095

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE

PURCHASE OF FIREFIGHTING HOODS AND GAS

MONITORS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR

HER DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

STANDARD ASSURANCES FOR CAL OES FEDERAL

NON-DISASTER GRANT PROGRAM DOCUMENT
WHEREAS, Fire Department personnel wear firefighting hoods as personal protective equipment during fire emergencies; and
WHEREAS, Fire Department personnel use gas monitors for inert gas operations to detect combustible gases in oxygen-free environments, including natural gas leaks; and
WHEREAS, the Solana Beach Fire Department received a grant through the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) in the amount of $9,409 for the purchase of firefighting hoods and gas monitors; and
WHEREAS, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Program document needs to be executed in order to receive these grant funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Council accepts $9,409 in federal funds from a 2023 State Homeland Security Program grant awarded to the City of Solana Beach for the purchase of firefighting hoods and gas monitors.

3. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to sign and submit the required California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Program document and any other documents necessary to receive the grant funds.

4. That the City Council authorizes the budget amendment of $9,409 to the Misc. Grant Fund - Federal Grants revenue account 246-46600 and the Minor Equipment expenditure account 2466120-64190.

5. That the City Council authorizes the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget accordingly.

Resolution 2024-095
SHSP Grant Award – Hoods & Gas Monitors

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September, 2024 at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABESENT: Councilmembers -
________________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_______________________________ ________________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services
5580 Overland Ave., Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123-1251
Phone: (858) 565-3490 Fax: (858) 565-3499
Email: [email protected]
June 10, 2024
City of Solana Beach
505 S Vulcan Ave
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING AWARD
FY 2023 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
Subaward #2023-0042, Cal OES ID #073-00000
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services has approved your FY2023 SHSP award in the amount of $9,409 as listed below:

Subrecipient Name:

Subrecipient UEI:

Federal Award ID (FAIN)
Subaward Period of Performance:

Subrecipient Award Amount:

Federal Award Project Description:

Federal Awarding Agency:

CFDA Number:

Research & Development Award (Y/N):

Indirect Cost Rate:

Match Requirement:

City of Solana Beach
EMJQMZFR49P9
EMW-2023-SS-00042
09/01/23 to 05/31/25
$9,409
Implementation of homeland security management grant
to support state, local, tribal and territorial efforts to prevent terrorism and other catastrophic events.

US Department of Homeland Security

97.067/Homeland Security Grant Program
No
N/A
N/A
This grant award is subject to all provisions of Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200), which can be accessed at www.ecfr.gov. Non-federal entities that expend $750,000 or more annually in Federal Awards must have a Single Audit performed each year. Please forward a copy of your most current Single Audit report to the contact below.

Subrecipients are to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) requirements. Additionally, Aviation/Watercraft requests, Establish/Enhance Emergency Operations Center projects, projects requiring EHP review, and Noncompetitive Procurement requests require additional approvals. Subrecipients must obtain written approval for these activities prior to incurring any costs, in order to be reimbursed for any related costs under this Grant Subaward.

Subrecipients are also required to obtain a Performance Bond prior to the purchase of any equipment item over $250,000, including any Aviation or Watercraft financed with Homeland Security dollars. Performance Bonds must be submitted to the contact below no later than the time of reimbursement.

Please complete and return the attached OES Grant Management Assessment Questionnaire, 2023 Grant Assurances and Signature Authorization Form, current Procurement Policies and Salvage Guidelines. A hard copy of the Grant Assurances and Signature Authorization Forms must be mailed.

County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services
5580 Overland Ave., Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123-1251
Phone: (858) 565-3490 Fax: (858) 565-3499
Email: [email protected]
Your performance period ends May 31, 2025. Please submit your reimbursement requests no later than June 30, 2025.

For further assistance, please contact Stephanie Han at (619) 708-1824, [email protected] or Nancy Lopez at (619) 508-2013, [email protected].

Sincerely,
M t. K • @ Digitally signed by
ar In, Urlan $ [email protected]
dcounty.ca.gov ~;~~~~024.06.1011 :42:s2
Martin Kurian, Departmental Budget Manager
County of San Diego, Office of Emergency Services
Attachments: OES Grant Management Assessment Questionnaire 2023 Grant Assurances
SHSP 2023 Approved FMFW
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

As the duly authorized representative of the Applicant, I hereby certify that the Applicant has the legal authority to apply for federal assistance and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay any non-federal share of project cost) to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project described in this application, within prescribed timelines.

The requirements outlined in these assurances apply to Applicant and any of its subrecipients.

I further acknowledge that the Applicant is responsible for reviewing and adhering to all requirements within the:
(a) Applicable Federal Regulations (see below);
(b) Federal Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO); (c) Federal Preparedness Grants Manual;
(d) California Supplement to the NOFO; and
(e) Federal and State Grant Program Guidelines.

Federal Regulations
Government cost principles, uniform administrative requirements, and audit requirements for federal grant programs are set forth in Title 2, Part 200 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Updates are issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.

In the event Cal OES determines that changes are necessary to the subaward after a subaward has been made, including changes to period of performance or terms and conditions, Applicants will be notified of the changes in writing. Once notification has been made, any subsequent request for funds will indicate Applicant acceptance of the changes to the subaward.

State and federal grant award requirements are set forth below. The Applicant hereby agrees to comply with the following:

1. Proof of Authority
The Applicant will obtain proof of authority from the city council, governing board, or authorized body in support of this project. This written authorization must specify that the Applicant and the city council, governing board, or authorized body agree:

CalOES

OOVEA NOR' S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(a) To provide all matching funds required for the grant project and that any cash match will be appropriated as required;
(b) Any liability arising out of the performance of this agreement shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and the city council, governing board, or authorized body;
(c) Grant funds shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the city council, governing board, or authorized body;
(d) The Applicant is authorized by the city council, governing board, or authorized body to apply for federal assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non-federal share of project cost, if any) to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the project described in this application; and
(e) The official executing this agreement is authorized by the Applicant.

This Proof of Authority must be maintained on file and readily available upon request.

2. Period of Performance
The period of performance is specified in the Award. The Applicant is only authorized to perform allowable activities approved under the award, within the period of performance.

3. Lobbying and Political Activities
As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), for persons entering into a contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement from an agency or requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan, the Applicant certifies that:
(a) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(b) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions.
(c) The Applicant shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and discloseaccordingly.

The Applicant will also comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 and §§ 7324-7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principle employment activities are funded in whole or in part with federal funds.

Finally, the Applicant agrees that federal funds will not be used, directly or indirectly, to support the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy without the express written approval from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) or the federal awarding agency.

4. Debarment and Suspension
As required by Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, and 2 C.F.R. § 200.214 and codified in 2 C.F.R. Part 180, Debarment and Suspension, the Applicant will provide protection against waste, fraud, and abuse by debarring or suspending those persons deemed irresponsible in their dealings with the federal government. The Applicant certifies that it and its subrecipients:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (4)(b) of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transaction (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default.

Where the Applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an explanation to this application.

5. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity
The Applicant will comply with all state and federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination, including:
(a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law (P.L.) 88-352 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin and requires that recipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and services;
(b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded educational program or activity;
(c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities or access and functional needs; (d) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires buildings and structures be accessible to those with disabilities and access and functional needs;
(e) Age Discrimination Act of 1975, (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6107), whichprohibits discrimination on the basis of age;
(f) Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§ 290 dd—2), relating to confidentiality of patient records regarding substance abuse treatment; (g) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing as implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 C.F.R. Part 100. The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units—i.e., the public and common use areas and individual apartment units (all units in buildings with elevators and ground-floor units in buildings without elevators)— Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

be designed and constructed with certain accessible features (See 24 C.F.R. § 100.201);
(h) Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employmentdecisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification or national origin;
(i) Executive Order 11375, which bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, or national origin in hiring and employment in both the United States federal workforce and on the part of government contractors;
(j) California Public Contract Code § 10295.3, which prohibits discrimination based on domestic partnerships and those in same sex marriages; (k) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy to ensure the equal treatment of faith-based organizations, under which the Applicant must comply with equal treatment policies and requirements contained in 6 C.F.R.

Part 19;
(l) The Applicant will comply with California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (California Government Code §§12940-12957), as applicable. FEHA prohibits harassment and discrimination in employment because of ancestry, familial status, race, color, religious creed (including religious dress and grooming practices), sex (which includes pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and medical conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, mental and physical disability, genetic information, medical condition, age, pregnancy, denial of medical and family care leave, or pregnancy disability leave, military and veteran status, and/or retaliation for protesting illegal discrimination related to one of these categories, or for reporting patient abuse in tax supported institutions;
(m)Any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for federal assistance is being made; and
(n) The requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) that may apply to this application.

6. Drug-Free Workplace
As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), the Applicant certifies that it will maintain a drug-free workplace and a drug-free awareness program as outlined in the Act.

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

7. Environmental Standards
The Applicant will comply with state and federal environmental standards, including:
(a) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177), to include coordination with the city or county planning agency;
(b) CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §§ 15000-15387);
(c) Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), which establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters; (d) Federal Clean Air Act of 1955 (42 U.S.C. § 7401) which regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources;
(e) Institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA; and Executive Order 12898 which focuses on the environmentaland human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities;
(f) Evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with Executive Order 11988;
(g) Executive Order 11514 which sets forth national environmental standards; (h) Executive Order 11738 instituted to assure that each federal agency empowered to enter into contracts for the procurement of goods, materials, or services and each federal agency empowered to extend federal assistance by way of grant, loan, or contract shall undertake such procurement and assistance activities in a manner that will result in effective enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Executive Order 11990 which requires preservation of wetlands;
(i) The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, (P.L. 93-523); (j) The Endangered Species Act of 1973, (P.L. 93-205);
(k) Assurance of project consistency with the approved state management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.);
(l) Conformity of Federal Actions to State (Clear Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§7401 et seq.); and
Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(m)Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. § 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wildand scenic rivers system.

The Applicant shall not be: (1) in violation of any order or resolution promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution district; (2) subject to a cease-anddesist order pursuant to section 13301 of the California Water Code for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions; or (3) determined to be in violation of federal law relating to air or water pollution.

8. Audits
For subrecipients expending $750,000 or more in federal grant funds annually, the Applicant will perform the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and 2 C.F.R., Part 200, Subpart F Audit Requirements.

9. Cooperation and Access to Records
The Applicant must cooperate with any compliance reviews or investigations conducted by DHS. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.337, the Applicant will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States and, if appropriate, the state, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the award. The Applicant will require any subrecipients, contractors, successors, transferees and assignees to acknowledge and agree to comply with this provision.

10. Conflict of Interest
The Applicant will establish safeguards to prohibit the Applicant’s employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain.

11. Financial Management
False Claims for Payment - The Applicant will comply with 31 U.S.C §§ 3729-3733 which provides that Applicant shall not submit a false claim for payment, reimbursement, or advance.

12. Reporting - Accountability
The Applicant agrees to comply with applicable provisions of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (P.L. 109-282), including but not limited to (a) the reporting of subawards obligating $30,000 or more in federal funds, Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

and (b) executive compensation data for first-tier subawards as set forth in 2 C.F.R.

Part 170, Appendix A. The Applicant also agrees to comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide financial assistance award term regarding the System for Award Management and Universal Identifier Requirements located at 2 C.F.R.

Part 25, Appendix A.

13. Whistleblower Protections
The Applicant must comply with statutory requirements for whistleblower protections at 10 U.S.C. § 2409, 41 U.S.C. § 4712, and 10 U.S.C. § 2324, 41 U.S.C. § 4304 and § 4310.

14. Human Trafficking
The Applicant will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. § 7104) which prohibits the Applicant or its subrecipients from: (1) engaging in trafficking in persons during the period of time that the award is in effect; (2) procuring a commercial sex act during the period of time that the award is in effect; or (3) using forced labor in the performance of the award or subawards under the award.

15. Labor Standards
The Applicant will comply with the following federal labor standards:
(a) The Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 276a to 276a-7), as applicable, and the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 3145 and 18 U.S.C. § 874) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 327-333), regarding labor standards for federally-assisted construction contracts or subcontracts, and (b) The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) as they apply to employees of institutes of higher learning (IHE), hospitals and other nonprofit organizations.

16. Worker’s Compensation
The Applicant must comply with provisions which require every employer to be insured to protect workers who may be injured on the job at all times during the performance of the work of this Agreement, as per the workers compensation laws set forth in California Labor Code §§ 3700 et seq.

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

17. Property-Related
If applicable to the type of project funded by this federal award, the Applicant will:
(a) Comply with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of federal or federally-assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of federal participation in purchase;
(b) Comply with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires federal award subrecipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more;
(c) Assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 470), Executive Order 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16U.S.C. § 469a-1 et seq.); and
(d) Comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. § 4831 and 24 CFR Part 35) which prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures.

18. Certifications Applicable Only to Federally-Funded Construction Projects For all construction projects, the Applicant will:
(a) Not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the terms of the real property title or other interest in the site and facilities without permission and instructions from the awarding agency. Will record the federal awarding agency directives and will include a covenant in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part with federal assistance funds to assure nondiscrimination during the useful life of the project;
(b) Comply with the requirements of the awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review and approval of construction plans and specifications;and (c) Provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering supervision at the construction site to ensure that the complete work conforms with the approved plans and specifications and will furnish progressive reports and such other information as may be required by the assistance awarding agency or State.

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

19. Use of Cellular Device While Driving is Prohibited
The Applicant is required to comply with California Vehicle Code sections 23123 and 23123.5. These laws prohibit driving motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication. Drivers are also prohibited from the use of a wireless telephone without hands-free listening and talking, unless to make an emergency call to 911, law enforcement, or similar services.

20. California Public Records Act and Freedom of Information Act The Applicant acknowledges that all information submitted in the course of applying for funding under this program, or provided in the course of an entity’s grant management activities that are under federal control, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the California Public Records Act, California Government Code §7920.000 et seq. The Applicant should consider these laws and consult its own State and local laws and regulations regarding the release of information when reporting sensitive matters in the grant application, needs assessment, and strategic planning process.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT PROGRAM (EMPG) –

PROGRAM SPECIFIC ASSURANCES / CERTIFICATIONS

21. Acknowledgment of Federal Funding from DHS
The Applicant must acknowledge its use of federal funding when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid invitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with federal funds.

22. Activities Conducted Abroad
The Applicant must ensure that project activities carried on outside the United States are coordinated as necessary with appropriate government authorities and that appropriate licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained.

23. Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) DHS defines personally identifiable information (PII) as any information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information that is linked or linkable to that individual. If the Applicant collectsPII, the Applicant is required to have a publicly-available privacy policy that describes standards on the usage and maintenance of PII they collect. The Applicant may refer to the DHS Privacy Impact Assessments: Privacy Guidance and Privacy template as a useful resource.

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

24. Copyright
The Applicant must affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 or 402 and an acknowledgement of United States Government sponsorship (including the award number) to any work first produced under federal financial assistance awards.

25. Duplication of Benefits
Any cost allocable to a particular federal financial assistance award provided for in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart E may not be charged to other federal financial assistance awards to overcome fund deficiencies, to avoid restrictions imposed by federal statutes, regulations, or federal financial assistance award terms and conditions, or for other reasons. However, these prohibitions would not preclude the Applicant from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more awards in accordance with existing federal statutes, regulations, or the federal financial assistance award terms and conditions.

26. Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Applicant must comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 6201 which contain policies relating to energy efficiency that are defined in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with this Act.

27. Federal Debt Status
The Applicant is required to be non-delinquent in its repayment of any federal debt.

Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowances, and benefit overpayments. See OMB Circular A-129.

28. Fly America Act of 1974
The Applicant must comply with Preference for United States Flag Air Carriers: (air carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. § 41102) for international air transportation of people and property to the extent that such service is available, in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. § 40118) and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in the March 31, 1981, amendment to Comptroller General Decision B-138942.

29. Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990
In accordance with Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, the Applicant must ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or training space funded in whole or in part with federal funds complies with the fire prevention and control guidelines of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 2225a.

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

30. Non-supplanting Requirement
If the Applicant receives federal financial assistance awards made under programs that prohibit supplanting by law, the Applicant must ensure that federal funds do not replace (supplant) funds that have been budgeted for the same purpose through non- federal sources.

31. Patents and Intellectual Property Rights
Unless otherwise provided by law, the Applicant is subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, Pub.

L. No. 96-517, as amended, and codified in 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq. The Applicant is subject to the specific requirements governing the development, reporting, and disposition of rights to inventions and patents resulting from financial assistance awards located at 37 C.F.R. Part 401 and the standard patent rights clause located at 37 C.F.R. § 401.14.

32. SAFECOM
If the Applicant receives federal financial assistance awards made under programs that provide emergency communication equipment and its related activities, the Applicant must comply with the SAFECOM Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants, including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications.

33. Terrorist Financing
The Applicant must comply with Executive Order 13224 and United States law that prohibit transactions with, and the provisions of resources and support to, individuals and organizations associated with terrorism. The Applicant is legally responsible for ensuring compliance with the Order and laws.

34. Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity andPerformance If the total value of the Applicant’s currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all federal assistance offices exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this federal financial assistance award, the Applicant must comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters located at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XII, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions.

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

35. USA Patriot Act of 2001
The Applicant must comply with requirements of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act), which amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 175-175c.

36. Use of DHS Seal, Logo, and Flags
The Applicant must obtain permission from their DHS Financial Assistance Office, prior to using the DHS seal(s), logos, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials, including use of the United States Coast Guard seal, logo, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of Coast Guard officials.

37. Applicability of DHS Standard Terms and Conditions to Tribes The DHS Standard Terms and Conditions are a restatement of general requirements imposed upon the Applicant and flow down to any of its subrecipients as a matter of law, regulation, or executive order. If the requirement does not apply to Indian tribes or there is a federal law or regulation exempting its application to Indian tribes, then the acceptance by Tribes of, or acquiescence to, DHS Standard Terms and Conditions does not change or alter its inapplicability to an Indian tribe. The execution of grant documents is not intended to change, alter, amend, or impose additional liability or responsibility upon the Tribe where it does not already exist.

38. Required Use of American Iron, Steel, Manufactured Products, and Construction Materials
The Applicant must comply with the “Build America, Buy America” Act (BABAA), enacted as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Executive Order 14005. Applicants receiving a federal award subject to BABAA requirements may not use federal financial assistance funds for infrastructure projects unless:
(a) All iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States – this means all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States; (b) All manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States – this means the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States; and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product, unless another standard for determining the minimum amount of domestic content of the manufactured product has been established under applicable law or regulation; and
Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(c) All construction materials are manufactured in the United States – this means that all manufacturing processes for the construction material occurred in the United States.

The “Buy America” preference only applies to articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, or affixed to an infrastructure project. It does not apply to tools, equipment, and supplies, such as temporary scaffolding, brought to the construction site and removed at or before the completion of the infrastructure project. Nor does a “Buy America” preference apply to equipment and furnishings, such as movable chairs, desks, and portable computer equipment, that are used at or within the finished infrastructure project but are not an integral part of the structure or permanently affixed to the infrastructure project.

Per section 70914(c) of BABAA, FEMA may waive the application of a “Buy America” preference under an infrastructure program in certain cases.

39. Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practice to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety
The Applicant must comply with the requirements of section 12(c) of Executive Order 14074. The Applicant is also encouraged to adopt and enforce policies consistent with Executive Order 14074 to support safe and effective policing.

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

IMPORTANT
The purpose of these assurances is to obtain federal and state financial assistance, including any and all federal and state grants, loans, reimbursement, contracts, etc.

Applicant recognizes and agrees that state financial assistance will be extended based on the representations made in these assurances. These assurances are binding on Applicant, its successors, transferees, assignees, etc. as well as any of its subrecipients.

Failure to comply with any of the above assurances may result in suspension, termination, or reduction of grant funds.

All appropriate documentation, as outlined above, must be maintained on file by the Applicant and available for Cal OES or public scrutiny upon request. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the grant or termination of the grant or both and the Applicant may be ineligible for award of any future grants if Cal OES determines that the Applicant: (1) has made false certification, or (2) violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.

All of the language contained within this document must be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers. Applicants are bound by DHS Security Standard Terms and Conditions 2023, Version 2, hereby incorporated by reference, which can be found at: https://www.dhs.gov/publication/fy15-dhs- standard-terms-and-conditions.

The undersigned represents that he/she is authorized to enter into this agreement for and on behalf of the Applicant.

Applicant:

Signature of Authorized Agent:

Printed Name of Authorized Agent:

Title: Date:

Cal OBS

OOVEANOA 'S OFFICE

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

JURISDICTION
CITIES LE - 30% of FY22
Allocation Non-LE Allocation TOTAL
Sworn LE
Personnel
Figures
(2022)
LE - 30% of FY23
Allocation
Non-LE
Population
(2022)
Non-LE Allocation TOTAL % Change from
FY2022 to FY2023
CARLSBAD 21,061 56,787 77,848 132 20,988 115,585 44,776 65,764 -15.52% CHULA VISTA 43,877 128,053 171,930 280 44,520 276,785 100,248 144,768 -15.80% CORONADO 7,339 15,024 22,363 46 7,314 22,277 12,666 19,980 -10.66% DEL MAR - 6,909 6,909 - 3,929 6,352 6,352 -8.06%
EL CAJON 19,625 51,290 70,915 123 19,557 105,638 41,353 60,910 -14.11% ENCINITAS - 32,928 32,928 - 61,515 26,169 26,169 -20.53% ESCONDIDO 24,571 73,012 97,583 159 25,281 150,679 56,853 82,134 -15.83% ESCONDIDO RINCON DEL DIABLO - 6,289 6,289 - 4,626 4,626 -26.44% IMPERIAL BEACH - 17,453 17,453 - 26,243 14,031 14,031 -19.61% LA MESA 11,169 31,713 42,882 70 11,130 60,472 25,810 36,940 -13.86% LEMON GROVE - 16,812 16,812 - 27,242 14,375 14,375 -14.50% NATIONAL CITY 13,721 33,134 46,855 88 13,992 61,471 26,154 40,146 -14.32% NATIONAL CITY - LINCOLN ACRES - 723 723 - 534 534 -26.14% OCEANSIDE 36,059 84,250 120,309 225 35,775 173,048 64,550 100,325 -16.61% POWAY - 26,941 26,941 - 48,759 21,779 21,779 -19.16%
SAN DIEGO 324,847 - 324,847 2,036 323,721 - - 323,721 -0.35% SAN MARCOS - 48,178 48,178 - 93,585 37,205 37,205 -22.78% SAN MARCOS FPD - 6,566 6,566 - 4,946 4,946 -24.67%
SANTEE - 30,467 30,467 - 59,015 25,309 25,309 -16.93%
SOLANA BEACH - 11,200 11,200 - 12,812 9,409 9,409 -15.99% VISTA - 51,302 51,302 - 100,291 39,513 39,513 -22.98%
VISTA FPD - 9,179 9,179 - 7,033 7,033 -23.38%
TOTAL CITIES 502,269 738,210 1,240,479 3,159 502,278 1,399,346 583,691 1,085,969 -12.46%

FIRE DISTRICTS/OTHER
ALPINE FPD - 12,274 12,274 - 15,550 10,351 10,351 -15.67% DEER SPRINGS FPD - 10,489 10,489 - 12,216 9,204 9,204 -12.25% LAKESIDE FPD - 33,621 33,621 - 63,251 26,766 26,766 -20.39% NORTH COUNTY FPD - 28,485 28,485 - 50,489 22,375 22,375 -21.45% PORT OF SAN DIEGO 22,337 - 22,337 140 22,260 - 22,260 -0.34% RANCHO SANTA FE FPD - 20,338 20,338 - 35,103 17,080 17,080 -16.02% SAN MIGUEL FPD - 61,544 61,544 - 123,095 47,360 47,360 -23.05% VALLEY CENTER FPD - 12,338 12,338 - 15,904 10,473 10,473 -15.12% TOTAL FIRE DISTRICTS/OTHER 22,337 179,090 201,427 140 22,260 315,608 143,609 165,869.00 -17.65% 2-1-1 SAN DIEGO CONTRACT 70,000 70,000 100,000 100,000 42.86% AlertSanDiego - 350,000 350,000 100.00%

COUNTY DEPTS
UDC SHARE 0 102,357 102,357 - - 102,357 102,357 0.00%
M&A (5%) 0 160,535 160,535 - - 160,535 160,535 0.00%
HHSA-EMS 0 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 80,000 0.00%
OES - 917,301 917,301 - - 727,301 727,301 -20.71%
SHERIFF 438,607 - 438,607 2,759 438,676 - - 438,676 0.02% TOTAL COUNTY DEPTS 438,607 1,260,193 1,698,800 2,759 438,676 - 1,070,193 1,508,869 -11.18% TOTAL ALLOCATIONS 963,213 2,247,493 3,210,706 6,058 963,213 1,714,954 2,247,493 3,210,706 0.00% Notes:
*Personnel Cap: Each jurisdiction's allocation has a personnel cap of 50%. *San Diego Sheriff includes: Unincorporated San Diego County and the contracted cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach and Vista.

FY 2023 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM (SHSP) APPROVED UDC GRANT ALLOCATION FY2022 Approved Formula with Award FY2023 - APPROVED
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # B.1.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Modification to a DRP at 403 Pacific Avenue. (Case # MOD24-001 Applicants: Peter and Sarah
Bates Resolution 2024-088) APN: 263-051-07
BACKGROUND:

The Applicants, Peter and Sarah Bates, are seeking the City Council’s approval of a Modification to a Development Review Permit (DRP) to remodel the interior of the residence and replace the windows, exterior doors, roofing, siding, and replace existing fireplace with a gas fireplace at the existing two-story residence at 403 Pacific Avenue.

The residence was originally constructed in 1966 prior to the City’s incorporation and prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan.

A square footage addition was approved at the project site in 1993. At that time, the City had not adopted the permanent Zoning Ordinance, therefore, development projects were reviewed under the regulations of Ordinance 80, the City’s Interim Zoning Ordinance. A development permit at that time was called a Site Development Permit and had a comparable review process as a Development Review Permit. Site Development Permit 80-93-08 was approved by the adoption of Resolution1993-055 which approved an addition with a minimum 40-foot rear yard setback from the top edge of the coastal bluff, a maximum height of 27 feet and the floor area of 3,505 square feet. The floor area exceeds the maximum floor area that would be permitted on the site today according to the Scaled Residential Overlay Zone that was adopted in 2007. Therefore, the existing residence is considered legally existing nonconforming for the height, bluff top setback and FAR.

The 6,795 square foot lot is located within the Medium Residential (MR) Zone and the Scaled Residential Overlay Zone (SROZ). The proposed project is below the bluff top redevelopment project threshold(s) as defined by the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP)/Land Use Plan (LUP) as discussed in this Staff Report.

September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

The proposed project requires a Modification to the DRP for one reason: 1) for development on a coastal bluff top property or on the face or toe of a bluff for which a coastal development permit will be required from the California Coastal Commission.

The issue before the Council is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Applicants’ request as contained in Resolution 2024-088 (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION:

The subject property is located on the west side of Pacific Avenue just north of the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Cliff Street. The lot size is 6,795 square feet. The site is currently developed with a two-story, single-family residence with an attached garage that is considered legally existing nonconforming because it does not meet the minimum required 40-foot bluff top setback, it exceeds the maximum FAR and the maximum building height for the zone.

The existing home consists of approximately 1,470 square feet of living area and an attached 690 square foot garage on the first floor and second floor living area of 1,655 square feet with an existing covered and enclosed 170 square foot balcony. The proposed project would not add any additional square footage. The existing residence is setback approximately 25 feet from the front property line and the closest portion of the residence is approximately 9 feet from the top of the bluff in the southwest corner of the lot.

The western half of the residence encroaches into the minimum 40-foot bluff top setback.

According to the site-specific borings taken onsite, the Geologic Setback Line (GSL) is 18 feet from the top of the bluff and only the southwest corner of the residence is seaward of the GSL line. Due to the fact that there are no proposed modifications to the structural components of the existing residence, the residence is allowed to remain in an existing nonconforming location.

As mentioned previously, the scope of work includes an interior remodel of the residence and like for like replacement of the windows, exterior doors, roofing, siding, and the replacement of the existing fireplace with a gas fireplace. The project plans are provided in Attachment 2. This scope of work does not exceed any DRP thresholds, however, the Applicants contacted the California Coastal Commission (CCC) prior to submitting their application and CCC Staff indicated that they would require a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed scope of work. The SBMC indicates that if the project is for development on a coastal bluff top property or on the face or toe of a bluff for which a coastal development permit will be required by the CCC, then a Development Review Permit is required.

The property is not located within any of the City’s Specific Plan areas; however, it is located within the boundaries of the SROZ. The project has been evaluated for conformance with the policies contained in the City’s Certified LCP LUP, regulations of the SROZ, and the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) which are discussed further later in this report. As a condition of project approval, the Applicants would be required September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City.

Table 1 below provides an overview of the applicable Certified LUP and Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) specific minimum and maximum requirements of the zoning regulations for the development of the property compared to the Applicants’ proposed design. As mentioned previously, the existing residence is existing nonconforming for height, setbacks, and floor area ratio (FAR) and the proposed project will not increase those nonconformities and are allowed to remain the proposed project as shown below would be in compliance with the regulations of the SBMC.

Table 1

LOT INFORMATION
Property Address:

Legal Lot Size:

Max. Allowable Floor Area:

Existing/Prop. Floor Area:

Over Max Floor Area:

Max. Allowable Height:

Existing Height:

Overlay Zone(s):
403 Pacific Ave.
6,795 ft2
3,139 ft2
3,585 ft2
446 ft2
25 ft.
27 ft.

SROZ
Zoning Designation:
# of Units Allowed:
# of Units Requested:

MR (5-7 du/ac)
1 Dwelling Unit 1 ADU
& 1 JADU
1 Existing Dwelling Unit
Setbacks: Required Existing
Front (E) 5 ft. 5.5 ft.

Interior Side (N) 5 ft. 24.5 ft.

Interior Side (S) 5 ft. 7.5 ft.

Rear (W) 40 ft. min. 9.5 ft.

PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Floor Area Breakdown: Required Permits:

DRP: A DRP is required for any development on a
coastal bluff top property or on the face or toe of a
bluff for which a Coastal Development Permit
issued by the California Coastal Commission is
presently required.

Existing Main Level Garage:

Existing Main Level Living Area:

Existing Upper-Level Living Area:

Existing Covered Patio:

Subtotal:

Required Parking Exemption:
690 ft2
1,470 ft2
1,655 ft2
170 ft2
3,985 ft2
-400 ft2
Total Floor Area: 3,585 ft2
Proposed Grading: The proposed project does not include any grading.

City Council Resolution 2024-088 provides the full text of the pertinent DRP regulations.

Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of the project for Council’s consideration based upon the information in this report and Staff’s analysis of the proposed project. It provides the applicable LUP and SBMC sections in italicized text. Conditions from the Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions as it deems appropriate as a part of the Public Hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for an action to be taken at a subsequent Council meeting.

The following is a discussion of compliance with the policies of the LCP LUP as well as the findings for a DRP (as each applies to the proposed project) and a discussion of the September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

development plans and recommended conditions as contained in the attached Resolution.

Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP):

The City’s LUP applies citywide as the entire City is located within the Coastal Zone.

Therefore, in addition to compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan, the project’s conformance with the certified LUP is also evaluated.

The LUP contains specific policies, provisions and regulations related to properties located on the coastal bluff including those related to bluff edge setbacks, existing legal non-conforming structures and the removal of permanent irrigation systems located within 100 feet of the bluff edge.

The key relevant policies from the City’s Certified LUP which apply to this project are listed below in italics for reference followed by an analysis of the how the proposed project is designed in compliance with the respective Certified LUP policy:

Policy 4.14: Existing, lawfully established structures that are located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (or lagoon) built prior to the adopted date of the LUP that do not conform to the provisions of the LCP shall be considered legal non-conforming structures. Such structures may be maintained and repaired, as long as the improvements do not increase the size or degree of non-conformity. Additions and improvements to such structures that are not considered Bluff Top Redevelopment, as defined herein, may be permitted provided that such additions or improvements themselves comply with the current policies and standards of the LCP. Complete demolition and reconstruction or Bluff Top Redevelopment is not permitted unless the entire structure is brought into conformance with the policies and standards of the LCP.

Policy 4.17: New development shall be set back a safe distance from the bluff edge, with a reasonable margin of safety, to eliminate the need for bluff retention devices to protect the new improvements. All new development, including additions to existing structures, on bluff property shall be landward of the Geologic Setback Line (GSL) as set forth in Policy 4.25. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and accessory or ancillary structures such as guesthouses, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, and septic systems, etc. Accessory structures such as decks, patios, and walkways, which are at-grade and do not require structural foundations may extend into the setback area no closer than five feet from the bluff edge. On lots with a legally established bluff retention device, the required geologic analysis shall describe the condition of the existing seawall; identify any impacts it may be having on public access and recreation, scenic views, sand supply and other coastal resources; and evaluate options to mitigate any previously unmitigated impacts of the structure or modify, replace or remove the existing protective device in a manner that would eliminate or reduce those impacts.

September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

The proposed project plans (Attachment 2) indicate that the project will consist of an interior remodel of the residence and like for like replacement of the windows, exterior doors, roofing, siding, and the replacement of the existing fireplace with a gas fireplace.

There are no proposed changes to the structural components or changes to the floor area. The southwest corner of the existing nonconforming residence is seaward of the GSL and approximately ½ of the residence is seaward of the minimum 40-foot rear yard setback.

The property has required five-foot side yard setbacks along the north and south side yards as well as along the front (landward or east) side of the property. The existing residence meets the required five-foot setback on the northern property line with the allowed projections for eaves and fireplaces. The residence exceeds the required setbacks on the eastern and southern property lines. The SBMC and the LUP indicate that legally existing nonconforming structures can be maintained and repaired as long as it does not increase the size or degree of the nonconformity.

The GSL and bluff stability requirements of the LUP are provided under LUP Policy 4.25.

The geotechnical analysis prepared by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (Attachment 3) that was provided by the Applicants and was reviewed by the City’s third-party geotechnical engineering consultant Colm Kenny of Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) found that the project was in compliance with the policies of the LCP/LUP (Attachment 4).

Policy 4.25: All new bluff property development shall be set back from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be in danger from erosion and that it will ensure stability for its projected 75-year economic life. To determine the GSL, applications for bluff property development must include a geotechnical report, from a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or a certified Engineering Geologist that establishes the Geologic Setback Line (GSL) for the proposed development.

This setback line shall establish the location on the bluff top stability where it can be reasonably assured for the economic life of the development. Such assurance will take the form of a quantitative slope analysis demonstrating a minimum factor of safety against sliding of 1.5 (static) or 1.2 (pseudostatic, k-0.15 or determined through analysis by the geotechnical engineer), using shear strength parameters derived from relatively undeformed samples collected at the site. In no case shall the setback be less than 40 feet from the bluff edge, and only if it can be demonstrated that the structure will remain stable, as defined above, at such a location for its 75-year economic life and has been sited safely without reliance on existing or future bluff retention devices, other than a caisson foundation.

The proposed project would not modify the structural components of the existing residence or change the footprint of the structure in any way, so the existing nonconforming structure is allowed to remain as is. The proposed improvements could be permitted as they would not increase the size or degree of the existing legal nonconformity as allowed under LUP Policy 4.14.

Policy 4.26: With respect to bluff properties only, the City will require the removal or capping of any permanent irrigation system within 100 feet of the bluff edge in September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

connection with issuance of discretionary permits for new development, redevelopment, or shoreline protection, or bluff erosion, unless the bluff property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, or the CCC if the project is appealed, that such irrigation has no material impact on bluff erosion (e.g., watering hanging plants over hardscape which drains to the street).

The proposed project has been conditioned to require that if there is any existing onsite irrigation that, prior to final inspection, the Applicants would be required to remove or cap off any/all onsite permanent irrigation systems located within 100 feet of the bluff edge.

Chapter 8 of the LUP (Definitions) contains the threshold listed below that is used by the City to evaluate whether a proposed project is considered a remodel or whether it meets the definition of a “Bluff Top Redevelopment” project.

Bluff Top Redevelopment shall apply to proposed development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (or lagoon) that consists of alterations including (1) additions to an existing structure, (2) exterior and/or interior renovations, (3) and/or demolition of an existing bluff home or other principal structure, or portions thereof, which results in:
(a) Alteration of 50% or more of major structural components including exterior walls, floor and roof structure, and foundation, or a 50% increase in floor area. Alterations are not additive between individual major structural components; however, changes to individual major structural components are cumulative over time from the date of certification of the LUP. (b) Demolition, renovation or replacement of less than 50% of a major structural component where the proposed alteration would result in cumulative alterations exceeding 50% or more of a major structural component, taking into consideration previous alterations approved on or after the date of certification of the LUP; or an alteration that constitutes less than 50% increase in floor area where the proposed alteration would result in a cumulative addition of greater than 50% of the floor area taking into consideration previous additions approved on or after the date of certification of the LUP.

The proposed project would not modify the footprint of the existing residence or change the existing floor area. The existing residence is nonconforming in that it exceeds the maximum building height and the maximum allowable FAR. The proposed project would not increase the size or the degree of the existing legal nonconformity. Additionally, as shown in Table 3, the proposed project is below all thresholds listed above and is therefore not considered a Bluff Top Redevelopment project and is not subject to Certified LUP Policy 4.29 which would otherwise require the project, as new development, to be brought into conformance with the LCP.

September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

Structural
Component
Proposed
or
Modified
Percent
Change /
Difference
LUP
Threshold
Exceeded?
Exterior Walls 99 FT 2 1/8 IN 22.8% No
Floor Area 0 SF 0% No
Foundation 0 SF 0% No
Roof Structure 400 SF 13.3% No
Floor Structure 0 SF 0% No
The property is located approximately 318.2 feet north of Tide Park Beach public beach access easement and 0.4 miles north of Fletcher Cove Park, which each provides public coastal access to the public beach below. As designed, the proposed project would not change the existing public access.

Development Review Permit Compliance:

In addition to meeting zoning requirements, the project must also be found in compliance with development review criteria. The proposed project requires a DRP for development on a coastal bluff top property that requires a coastal development permit issued by the CCC.

The following is a list of the development review criteria topics:

1. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses

2. Building and Structure Placement

3. Landscaping

4. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking and Storage Areas

5. Grading

6. Lighting

7. Usable Open Space
The Council may approve, or conditionally approve, a DRP only if all the findings listed below can be made. Resolution 2024-088 (Attachment 1) provides a full discussion of the following findings.

1. The proposed development is consistent with the general plan and all applicable requirements of this title, including special regulations, overlay zones, and specific plans.

2. The proposed development complies with the development review criteria set forth in subsection F of this section.

3. All required permits and approvals issued by the city, including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.

September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

4. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the development review permit upon the applicant obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.

If the above findings cannot be made, the Council shall deny the DRP. The following is a discussion of the applicable development review criteria as they relate to the proposed project.

Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses:

The property is located within the MR Zone. Other nearby properties are also located within the MR Zone and are developed with one and two-story, single-family residences.

The project site is currently developed with a split-level, single-family residence.

The project, as designed, is consistent with the permitted uses for the MR Zone as described in SBMC Sections 17.20.010 and 17.12.020. The property is designated Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residences developed at a maximum density of five to seven dwelling units per acre. The proposed development could be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.

The property is not located within any of the City’s Specific Plan areas; however, it is located within the boundaries of the SROZ and within the Coastal Zone. The project has been evaluated, and could be found to be in conformance with, the regulations of the SROZ, which are discussed further in this report. As a condition of project approval, the Applicants would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

Building and Structure Placement:

The Applicants are proposing like for like replacement of the windows, doors, siding, water proofing, non-structural roofing and light fixtures. There are no proposed modifications to the footprint floor area or height of the existing structure.

Fences, Walls and Retaining Walls:

The SBMC allows for fences and walls or any combination thereof, to be no higher than 42 inches in height as measured from existing grade within the front yard setback.

Fences, walls and retaining walls located within the rear and interior side yards are allowed to be up to six feet in height with an additional 24 inches that is 50% open to light and air.

The plans indicate that there are existing walls in the rear and side yards and one in front of the existing residence that will remain without any proposed modifications. A condition September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

of approval has been added to the resolution that indicates that any proposed onsite fences, walls and any proposed railing located on top, or any combination thereof shall comply with applicable regulations of SBMC Section 17.20.040 and 17.60.070 (Fences and Walls).

Landscape:

The project is not subject to the water efficient landscaping regulations of SBMC Chapter

17.56. According to SBMC Section 17.56.040, the regulations apply to modified irrigated landscaped areas that exceed 500 square feet. The Applicants are not proposing any new irrigated landscaping.

The LCP Policy 4.26 requires the Applicants to cap or remove any permanent irrigation systems onsite unless the bluff property owner demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that such irrigation has no material impact on bluff erosion. A condition has been added that if there are any permanent irrigation systems that they shall be capped or removed.

Parking:

The existing attached 690 square foot garage is located on the east side of the residence and will remain as it currently exists. The garage provides two unobstructed parking spaces that are 9 ft. X 19 ft. therefore the property qualifies for the 400 square footage exemption for required parking in an enclosed garage.

Grading:

The proposed project does not include any grading.

Lighting:

A condition of project approval includes that all new exterior lighting fixtures comply with the City-Wide Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (SBMC 17.60.060). All light fixtures shall be shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding area.

Useable Open Space:

The project consists of an interior remodel and like for like replacement of existing finishes, windows and doors for an existing single-family residence with attached garage, therefore, usable open space and recreational facilities are not required according to SBMC 17.20.040.

Property Frontage & Public Right-of-Way Improvements:

No frontage or right-of-way improvements are required as part of this permit.

September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

Public Hearing Notice:

Notice of the City Council Public Hearing for this project was published in the San Diego Union Tribune more than 10 days prior to the public hearing. The same public notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project site on September 10, 2024. As of the date of preparation of this Staff Report, Staff has not received any letters, phone calls, or emails from neighbors or interested parties in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed project.

In conclusion, if the Council can make the required findings, the proposed project, as conditioned, could be found in compliance with the requirements of the Certified LUP, Zoning Ordinance, and the General Plan, and could be found to meet the findings required to approve a DRP.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption) of the 2024 State CEQA Guidelines which is an exemption for minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities including additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation adopting the attached Resolution 2024-088. • Approve Staff recommendation subject to additional specific conditions necessary for the City Council to make all required findings for the approval of a DRP. • Deny the project if all required findings for the DRP cannot be made.

September 25, 2024
MOD24-001 Bates Residence
403 Pacific Ave.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The proposed project meets the minimum objective requirements under the LUP, SBMC, is consistent with the General Plan and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a modification to a DRP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, and Close the Public Hearing.

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2024-088 conditionally approving a Modification to a Development Review Permit (DRP) to remodel the interior of the residence and replace the windows, exterior doors, roofing, siding, and replace existing fireplace with a gas fireplace at the existing two-story residence at 403 Pacific Avenue. ________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2024-088

2. Project Plans

3. Geotechnical Reports

4. UES Geotechnical Letter
RESOLUTION 2024-088

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT

REVIEW PERMIT TO REMODEL THE INTERIOR OF THE

RESIDENCE AND REPLACE THE WINDOWS, EXTERIOR

DOORS, ROOFING, SIDING, AND REPLACE EXISTING

FIREPLACE WITH A GAS FIREPLACE AT THE EXISTING
TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 403 PACIFIC AVENUE, SOLANA
BEACH
APPLICANTS: PETER AND SARAH BATES
CASE NO.: MOD24-001
APN: 263-051-07
WHEREAS, Peter and Sarah Bates (hereinafter referred to as “Applicants”) have submitted an application for a Modification to a Development Review Permit (DRP) pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning), of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 17.72.030; and
WHEREAS, Site Development Permit 80-93-08 was approved with the adoption of Resolution 1993-055 which establishes that the existing residence legally existing nonconforming to the current zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing on September 25, 2024, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the proposed application; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach found the application request exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence presented at the Hearing and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the hearing.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

2. That the request for a Modification to a DRP to remodel the interior of the residence and replace the windows, exterior doors, roofing, siding, and the replacement of the existing fireplace with a gas fireplace at the existing two-story residence at 403 Resolution 2024-088
DRP 24-001 Bates Residence

Pacific Avenue is conditionally approved based upon the following findings and subject to the following conditions:

3. FINDINGS
A. In accordance with Section 17.68.040 (Development Review Permit) of the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code, the City Council finds the following:

I. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of SBMC Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), including special regulations, overlay zones and specific plans.

General Plan Consistency: The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential, which allows for single-family residential development with a maximum density of 5-7 dwelling units per acre. Further, the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.

Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Consistency: The proposed project is consistent with all applicable requirements of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan including key policies related to bluff edge setbacks for new development.

Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The proposed project is consistent with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) (SBMC

17.20.030 and 17.48.040), which delineates maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Permitted Uses and Structures (SBMC Section

17.20.020), which provides for uses of the property for a single-family residence. Further, the proposed project adheres to all property development regulations established for the Medium Residential (MR) Zone and cited by SBMC Section 17.020.030 as well as the specific development regulations of the Scaled Residential Overly Zone (SROZ) cited in SBMC Section 17.48.040.

The design of the proposed project is consistent with the provisions for minimum yard dimensions (i.e., setbacks) and the maximum FAR, maximum building height, and parking requirements. Prior to building permit issuance, the project will be reviewed for compliance with the landscape regulations as established by SBMC Section 17.56.

II. The proposed development complies with the following development review criteria set forth in Solana Beach Municipal Code Section

17.68.040.F:

Resolution 2024-088
DRP 24-001 Bates Residence

a. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses: The development shall be designed in a manner compatible with and where feasible, complimentary to existing and potential development in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Site planning on the perimeter of the development shall give consideration to the protection of surrounding areas from potential adverse effects, as well as protection of the property from adverse surrounding influences.

The property is located within the MR Zone. Other nearby properties are also located within the MR Zone and are
developed with one and two-story, single-family residences. The project site is currently developed with a split-level, single-family residence.

The project, as designed, is consistent with the permitted uses for the MR Zone as described in SBMC Sections 17.20.010 and

17.12.020. The property is designated Medium Density
Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residences developed at a maximum density of five to seven dwelling units per acre. The proposed development could be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated
neighborhoods.

The property is not located within any of the City’s Specific Plan areas; however, it is located within the boundaries of the SROZ and within the Coastal Zone. The project has been evaluated, and could be found to be in conformance with, the regulations of the SROZ, which are discussed further in this report. As a condition of project approval, the Applicants would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
b. Building and Structure Placement: Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhances their intended use.

The Applicants are proposing like for like replacement of the windows, doors, siding, water proofing, non-structural roofing and light fixtures. There are no proposed modifications to the footprint floor area or height of the existing structure.

Resolution 2023-088
DRP 24-001 Bates Residence

c. Landscaping: The removal of significant native vegetation shall be minimized. Replacement vegetation and landscaping shall be compatible with the vegetation of the surrounding area.

Trees and other large plantings shall not obstruct significant views when installed or at maturity.

The project is not subject to the water efficient landscaping regulations of SBMC Chapter 17.56. According to SBMC
Section 17.56.040, the regulations apply to modified irrigated landscaped areas that exceed 500 square feet. The Applicants are not proposing any new irrigated landscaping.

The LCP Policy 4.26 requires the Applicants to cap or remove any permanent irrigation systems onsite unless the bluff property owner demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that such irrigation has no material impact on bluff erosion. A condition has been added that if there are any permanent irrigation systems that they shall be capped or removed. d. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking and Storage Areas: Any development involving more than one building or structure shall provide common access roads and pedestrian walkways.

Parking and outside storage areas, where permitted, shall be screened from view, to the extent feasible, by existing topography, by the placement of buildings and structures, or by landscaping and plantings.

The existing attached 690 square foot garage is located on the east side of the residence and will remain as it currently exists.

The garage provides two unobstructed parking spaces that are 9 ft. X 19 ft. therefore the property qualifies for the 400 square footage exemption for required parking in an enclosed garage. e. Grading: To the extent feasible, natural topography and scenic features of the site shall be retained and incorporated into the proposed development. Any grading or earth-moving operations in connection with the proposed development shall be planned and executed so as to blend with the existing terrain both on and adjacent to the site. Existing exposed or disturbed slopes shall be landscaped with native or naturalized non-native vegetation and existing erosion problems shall be corrected.

The proposed project does not include any grading.

Resolution 2024-088
DRP 24-001 Bates Residence

f. Lighting: Light fixtures for walkways, parking areas, driveways, and other facilities shall be provided in sufficient number and at proper locations to assure safe and convenient nighttime use.

All light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding areas per SBMC 17.60.060 (Exterior Lighting Regulations).

A condition of project approval includes that all new exterior lighting fixtures comply with the City-Wide Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (SBMC 17.60.060). All light fixtures shall be shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding area.
g. Usable Open Space: Recreational facilities proposed within required usable open space shall be located and designed to maintain essential open space values.

The project consists of an interior remodel and like for like replacement of existing finishes, windows and doors for an existing single-family residence with attached garage, therefore, usable open space and recreational facilities are not required according to SBMC 17.20.040.

III. All required permits and approvals, including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits, have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.

All required permits are being processed concurrently with the modification.

IV. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the development review permit upon the Applicants obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.

The Applicants are required to obtain approval from the CCC prior to issuance of Building Permits.

4. CONDITIONS
Prior to use or development of the property in reliance on this permit, the Applicants shall provide for and adhere to the following conditions:

Resolution 2024-088
DRP 24-001 Bates Residence

A. Community Development Department Conditions:

I. Building Permit plans must be in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council on September 11, 2024, and located in the project file with a submittal date of August 21, 2024.

II. The Applicants shall obtain required California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption as determined necessary by the CCC, prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City.

III. The Applicants shall remove or cap any/all permanent irrigation systems onsite unless the bluff property owner demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public Works Director, that such irrigation has no material impact on bluff erosion (e.g., watering hanging plants over hardscape which drains to the street).

IV. Any new bluff property landscaping shall consist of native, noninvasive, drought-tolerant, fire-resistant, and salt-tolerant species.

V. Any new exterior lighting fixtures shall be in conformance with the City-Wide Lighting Regulations of SBMC 17.60.060.

VI. All light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities that render them detrimental to the surrounding area.

VII. Construction vehicles shall be parked on the subject property at all times when feasible. If construction activity prohibits parking on the subject property, the Applicants shall ensure construction vehicles are parked in such a way to allow sufficient vehicular access on Pacific Avenue and minimize impact to the surrounding neighbors.

VIII. Pursuant to SBMC 17.68.040 subsection K, the signed final development plan shall be the official site layout for the property and shall be attached to any application for a building permit for the subject property. Any subsequent revisions or changes to the final development plan as approved by the Council will require an amendment to the approved DRP.

B. Fire Department Conditions:

I. GATES: All gates or other structures or devices, which could obstruct fire access roadways or otherwise hinder emergency operations, are prohibited unless they meet standards approved by the Fire Resolution 2023-088
DRP 24-001 Bates Residence

Department. An approved emergency key-operated switch and/or an approved emergency traffic control-activating strobe light sensor shall be installed per the Solana Beach Municipal Code Title 15 Building and Construction Chapter 15.32 Fire Code Section 503.6.

All Knox Box products shall be purchased through Solana Beach Fire website.

II. OBSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION: All
roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width during construction and maintained free and clear, including the parking of vehicles per the 2022 California Fire Code Chapter 5 Section 503.4 and 503.2.1.

III. ADDRESS NUMBERS: STREET NUMBERS: Approved numbers
and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property from either direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast with their background, and shall meet the following minimum standards as to size: 4” high with a ½” inch stroke width for residential buildings, 8” high with a ½” stroke for commercial and multi-family residential buildings, 12” high with a 1” stroke for industrial buildings. Additional numbers shall be required where deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, building corners, and entrances to commercial centers per the 2022 California Fire Code Chapter 5 Section 505.1.

IV. CLASS “A” ROOF: All structures shall be provided with a Class “A” Roof covering to the satisfaction of the Solana Beach Fire Department and per the 2022 California Building Code Chapter 15 Section 1505.

C. Engineering Department Conditions:

I. All construction demolition materials shall be recycled according to the City’s Construction and Demolition recycling program and an approved Waste Management Plan shall be submitted.

5. ENFORCEMENT: Pursuant to SBMC 17.72.120(B) failure to satisfy any and all of the above-mentioned conditions of approval is subject to the imposition of penalties as set forth in SBMC Chapters 1.1.6 and 1.18 in addition to any applicable revocation proceedings.

6. EXPIRATION: The Modification for the project will expire 24 months from the date of this Resolution, unless the Applicants have obtained building permits and have commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to Resolution 2024-088
DRP 24-001 Bates Residence

completion. An extension of the expiration date of this Development Review Permit may be applied for pursuant to SBMC 17.72.110 subject to City Council approval.

7. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT: The Applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney’s fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify the Applicants of any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification. In the event of such election, the Applicants shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicants regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Applicants shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicants.

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, you are hereby notified that the 90-day period to protest the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution commences on the effective date of this resolution. To protest the imposition of any fee, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution you must comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020. Generally, the resolution is effective upon expiration of the tenth day following the date of adoption of this resolution, unless the resolution is appealed or called for review as provided in the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 25th day of September 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Resolution 2024-088
DRP 24-001 Bates Residence

_____________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk AS6~EVIATION5
CENTeRUNE
0 t,,--t..fETCR OR ZOIJN;=)
(EJ E:.Xl&TING
EX>;T'6 E>'.lS1lNGA5'>'. ABOVE
ACOl)e, AGOJS11GAL
A.D A'-cf..A pi:;::,'4N
AD.J, AL'i.JJST ""8LE
A.F.F. ABOVE. FINISH FLOOR
A.F 0 A.G.JAGE1 ,T Fl?ll';;H IS>R.I..PE
ALUM Al.UHINlJM
~OY 1-~XIMA~
6D Bor--RO
Bl. BUILT-IN
BL9G.6JI_D!NS,

BLK BLOCK
BLKG. SLOCKJSS
BM. SEAN
BOT BOTTOt-'
CAS. C,ASlN"E.T
GEM. C.l:MENT
C.L6 C.EIUNG
C,LO C.L05ET
GLR C.LEA<s:.

C..M !,.I. C-ONCRE7E MASONR. Y UNIT

COL COLUMN
C.ONC.C.CNCR.ETE
c.orm. C.ONNEC.. TION
CON5TR. CONSTRUC.TlON
CONT. C.ONTINLCU5-
GSMT. C..ASEMENT J'i!HDOV'l
GTR. C-ENTER

D DRYER
:>BL DOUBLE
DEPT. DEPAA,,._.,.Bff
DE7 DETAIL
DIA. DIAMETER
DlN Di~1EN5>0N
DN. DOY'1H
D.0. DOOR. OPEN!N6

DR DOOR
:;ii"'( DISH Y¼5HER
Dl-"+6'5 DRN-"UNGS
Dh."Z DR.AYtE,'-<:.

E. EAST
E.A EACH
E.-l. EXPANSION JOJ~n
EL ELE\/ A TION
ELEG ELEC.1RISAL
EO. !:(;.VAL
EG!UlP. EGUIPl-1ENT
EXJST. EXlSTING
E><P. EXPA"lSION
EX; ~-"!OR
f,t.LJ FCR.GED AIR UNiT
FD. FLOOR DRAIN

FDN FOJNDAT'ON
F.F. F!Nl5H FLOOR
F.G-. FINISH GRADE
F.H Fl~E HY':)RAN7

FIN FINISH
FIX"'"...D fl)'8)~"'100V'I

FL FLOON
FLASH FLASHiN6
F.O G-. FAGE OF CON::.~ETE
F.O.F FACE Of FIN!5H
F.O.M. FACE OF MULLIOl~
F.O S FAGE Cvf 5TIJD
F.P. FIREPLAGE

FRAM'G FRAYING
FT fCQaT c;:;:. FEE7
FTG. FOOTiN6
FURR. FURR<t•-IC:,
FlJT. FVl\lRt:
6 Gi-5
GA. G>,LIGE
6-fot.V 15-ALVA"l'ZED
6-r GAc;--BA0f~ Dl5"",?5.A_
Gr-GI 6ROV~<O F"AVL.T GuFtRf:NT lNiEFtUPTER
6-L Go~,\$$
6!'0. GKOIJNJ::;
G~. G-ft.l..DE
61-c~-" G"rC"'OOJv
6YP.BD o$YF'YJM SOARD
H.6 H~E5l5
Ht::;;:;-_ HU-OEF.

HDr¢:' HARO,·lOOD
HDi'-i!':. HA?Drv'-..,E
HJ•:. HO.:...LOr'~ '.--1ET A ..

HQRIZ HOF'-lZCINT AL
HR HC.,'<.

Hi. Hl:161-ff
H.V.A.G Hf.:AT1N6 VGNilLATION. 4 AIR
cc•.::,mc·i1N6

HQRZ HORIZONTAL
!NS-:J:.. 1NS'JLAT1~
INT. IN!t:.~JOK
LIN, LIMB~
LAM. J._At,,liNAn_
LI,,'. L,\'/ATCP.Y
LT. LIGHT
MAX MAXJM"UN
t-'I G l'··E:.OIC1•:t: GA.::,!N.ET
HECH MECHANIC.AL
lv!NB.M'=NBF!ANE
Mf-0 1'-'lAl'llJfA.::;.TUR.~16
HFfl. MANl.lFAG-TORED
1-'1'· t•!,'-~HO!.L:

Hil<t HiNn,..-ruH
MISC,. Ml5Gat.AH!;OV5
M-... t--1~ !AL
HUL. 1"1ULLICJN
N MOR.II-I
NJ.G. NOT N CONTRAGT
NO OR :,; NUHEER
NOM. NOM:NAL
N.T.P. NOTICE TO PROCEED
N.T.S. NOT TO SC-ALE
0/ OVER

0.A OVERA.L~
O.C.-. ON GEN7ER
OD. OIJT51DE DIAMETER

0.D OVERFL..01-"i .D;::zA!N

0.H. OVERHEAD
O.~ C-. OVERHEAD GN3iNET
OPN6.CPEN!NGOPP. OPPOSlTE
PL PROPER.TY UT::: OR ?LATE
PUSH P;?LE A'-0 SHELF
?L. LAM. PLASTlG LAMINATE
PLSTR P .....A5TEI~.

Pu.IMS. PUJNSIN6
PLYVO. PLY;'iOOD
PNL. PA"lEL
<=>NTRY. PANTRY
P.P P! ./••,NTIN5 POKET
PR PA!R
PRG-S:'FRECAST
PREFAB REFASR.!G-ATED
PT. PO,NT
PTN. PATJTION
PTD. PAINTED
R.. R.15ER
R R.ADJJS
R.D ROOF DRAIN
R.EFR REFRIGERATOR
RE'NF REINFORC.E. RE!NF~ED
RGTR REGISTE~
R..EG. REGI.JiRED
RET. R:?515TNH
~SL RE51UENT
R..M R.001--1
R.O RCJGoH OPEN"NS
r:.:....v. ROOF VEN7
5 5;::)'JTt-1

5.C S:::UD G-ORE
5GHE.D. ¾HEDULE

5.D 570RM :::·RAU,
5EG-T. SECT!Qt.;
S.F. 5GUA~ FEET
St<R 5'-0l"ER
5HT. SHEET
SIM StMILAR
5L 5!...0f'E/;";L..!DE.R. (Vilt.DOY{)
SL.DR SUDl~~S GLASS D:::JOR
SPEC. 5P-~1Fl~AJ10}~5
SG. 5CJAR.E

5.5. 5TAJ!-.LE55 STEEL
ST S7QNE
STD 5T;i..N?ARD
5TL. STEC:..

STOR STOR.AGE
s-r:;;uc.T::o :'." ~uc.~L'RN.

SlROCT ~1RUC,1URE
;>l..lSF'. :;,US'FfNt?EO
5Y'' 5YHME:,::;c-JC,A:_
TREAC>
TB TOV'iE.L. !;,-\R
T,C- 1T<.""5H C-OMP,~C.T0-
Tl=L. -reLEPHOtlE
TT•~Q TE''1PE.7.!'::;) G- /'5S
Ti,:,,. TGN&Jf::. AND i:1ROOVE
T .O.C, TOP OF C:.UR.5
T.r J TO.:..ET ~'APEF. :,15F"~'-l5E.F
i V. if.LEV!SION
l Y'l TO""' OF ~L
T·e" T,PlC.Al..,
u:>6. UNDER.e:,ROJND
U."~ 0. U!~:J:~ }:O~ 0Tl-1~5E
VC~T YE.:.a.TIGA.....

VP. VAPCR PROOF
V', C t'V, ~ C:...05:" '7"
i'IV. V'-tOOD
f'I..H ;"{AT~~ HEATER
Y'uS v,.,· >--IOU~
1"~.P. V'iATERPROOF
Wf Y'lFGkT
ffi~-- Yv'-."",°ER

BATES RESIDENCE RENOVATION
403 PACIFIC AVENUE
SOLANA BEACH, GA '12015
6/21/2024
6!:=NE~J.. NOTES
PROVIDE SAC,!<. OR.,"..Fi C,W-1P'ER AT Ex:HAIJST FAN PER CHG 51:C.'TION 504.0 NEW VENTlLATICN OPENINGS IN VERTIGAL t'iALL, OR OTHER SIH'.l..AR VENTILATION OP!:NIN6~, SHAl..L BE. l..OUVERW ANO ~f=O Yi!TH 1/4", NON-coM3VST!6J,.E C-ORRCSIOt; RESl::CIANT ',fET -~ MESH, OR OTHfS APFROVE:17 MATU<.IAJ. 1HA1 OFFE:Rs. EGLJJVAL.ENI PftOTECTION.
:ifATT Hc;AJ.."'."H AfO 5Afl:.TYC9Di; $!:.C. 1"1':~1.'9 !:,;,AN$1dEU!;;-L Of" cHLOf:.:NA~.? POL WINYL CHLORIDE (GPYC,) FCFt IN.TEr-!.lOR 1-"'iATER SUPPLY PIF"IN6 F'ROVIOE HIXiN6 VALVE AT SHOVtER HE.AD PER C.PG XGTION .410.0.

ONS!TE BU!L T-IJP 5HOY'iER RECEPTOR SHA!....... CC~PLY V-l!TH CQC, 4'11).

PROV'IPE C.>RBON-MONO>G.?E SENSOR(S) PE.~ C:SC. 5~C-Tt0-.t 4~ A-.

PERi--fANENT VA~M SREAKER.5 SHALL BE INCLUDED Y',lJTH ALL NEY'{ HOSE BIBS.

Ail A55 AN.? PVC. P!PIN.0 AND FITT1N.G5 5HALL CE ENC.LOSE::> VilTl--llN Y'i.A_L AND FLOORS C.OVERED ¥'{,TH -rrPE X 6YP5'JM BOARD" OR 5tl'.-1!LAR THATf'ROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF Fl~E F'R:::JTECTION. FROTEG-TfOt4 MEHBRA~E PEN!::TRATION5 IS NO'

REQUIRED,
J-JABITABLE SP.AC.E. HAL! .... YiAYS. BATr<ROOtv'S, TO::....ET ROOMS. LJ.JJHDRY R.QOt.-lS AND PORTIONS OF BASEMENTS C.ONTAJNING THESE 5PAGE5 SHALL HAVE A GEIU~G HEJ6'H"; OF NOT LE5 THAN 1-0~. (R.:!05.1)
ALL DIMS6IONS ARE TO FAC-E CF 511JDS. U.N 0.
6A5 VENTS 4 NONCOM FlP1HG ,N l'tALLS, PA55!N6 THRU THREE FLOORS OR LE55.

SHALL BE EFFEG TIVEL Y DRAFT 570PPED O E;..c..H FLOOR OR CEILING GLEARANC.E FCR. CHIMNEY'S. VENT FUJES, ETC., ,5HA!..L BE PER HANUFAG-!VRER.5 INS-;RUC..TIOHS OR PER V"-'fG. ~!GHEVER IS GREATER.

PROVIDE SOLID BAO<IN6 !N 51UD 1-'W..LS FOR HAND RAILS, TOLET AC,G.ESSORlE5, CABINETS. ETC.
1'..:NDOi'i AND DOC~ S!ZE:5 ARE NOM!~-lAL DlMENS;QNS, ;~FEET.AND INCHES, THE HORIZONTAL DMENSION FIRST.

PRO'vlDE SEISMIC, RE5TRAJNT5 FOR i"tATER HEATERS. ONE. 5TRAP AT TuE TOP 1/3 OF THE TANK AND ONE STRAP AT THE BOTTOM 1/3 OF THE TANK.

IN 540Y4!:.R.5 AN? llJB-SHOV,ER COMBINATION CONTROL VALVES MUST SE FRES!:,JRE 9ALANCEO ~ TI-IERHOSTATIC MIXING V.A!..YE5
NB', J.'V.i"ER C.L05ET5 SHALL USE '".10 MCRE Tf-<AN 1.b 6,A,LLON5 PER FLUSH AND SHALL HEET THE PERFC-RMANCE ST A"IVAR:)5 ESTABL!SHED BY THE AME.i:.:.JG-AN NATfCNAL 5>ANDAR.DS INSTITlJ.E. 5>ANDAR.D = A 11.2.19 . .2 H45 COD. SECliON 1i'121.3(b)
PROVIPE i-"'if:ATHER-S"1'RIPPN6 Oh ALL l-'\INDCr"'i5 ! EXTER:OR DOORS 4 DOOR TO 6AR.A6~ FROM HOJ5E.

PROVVE 5HOKE A:....AR~S. fNTERCCN"lEGrt:D N~:, HA"<.0-Y'i'~ED VflH BA7TERY BACK--OP, IN THE DYltELLJNG VNDERGOINS ADDITlON. ALTERATION, OR. REPA:R: (l) V{TH!N EAG~ SLEEP'~6 R.OOl'-1. (.2) O'Jl5lDE EACH SLEEPIN6 t..r.:.EA !~~ IMMEDIATE VlC!NITY OF 5EDR.OOMS. (3} ON EAc.rl STC~Y OF THE ::>~NtS, ;NGLUD,NG 6A5EMEN7S AND HABiTABLE ATTICS.

BATTERY OPERATED SMOKE Al..At::!.M5 HAY BE USED !N E.Xi5TING AREAS OF SIIIL.D'N6 Jll4!--lE!~.E THE IN5TfaJ....LA7!0N CF HARD-l"l!RED SNOKE ALA..RJ-tS l"IC;JLV REQUIRE. THE !'<:EMOVAL o:= INTI::RJOR F!N5HE:5. GR::. R3"..!
PROVl?E CA~ON "'fONOxJOE A!At:::.MS. INTI:RCONNEGTED A.ND Ht-.t::!.0-Vf~ED f'"{JTH 5ATT"EF:Y BACK-UP. IN Tl'1E DY-IELUNG UNDERGO'.'.'.G M, ADD,TtON, .Al.TER.A..TION. OR' REF AR:('.) OUTSiDE CF EACH SEPARATE 0YiELLIN6 UNIT 5LEEPN6 AREA !N THE r:~HEDIATE Vl'.'.:.lNITY OF THE 8~0~(5), (2) c" EVERY LEVEL CF A D,i..ELLNG UNIINCWDiNG s,:,BEHENTS BATTERY OPERATED G""'-BdN HONOx1.:::,E A.LAR.MS> HA.Y BE U5EO IN E><ISTl!'-<G AA.EAS o= 6'J . ..:,INc• l'iHEi?E:: TH[ iN51"A . ..LA1"1S-N or H~-Vi!RFJ C,,\:;-.BON '--iONO:<JDE ALA~M5 Y'10...i.D ru:.o.m,c. THC ri.EMOVA!.. OF INTI:R!OR f!N~Hl:=S CR.C, R.:>15 CR.C, ~~::OTJC', R:,.o~.1 H,\G!TAB_E RCJ!-'15 ALL 11,\Blil·SLE KOOt•!::C SHA.:_ Hf,\'!= A}; A66/ltE6,1.,:re. 6LAZ!N6 AA.EA OF k:,T LESSi iHAt-~ a Fl:RGENT OF THE FLOOR .AREA OF SUCH ROOMS, NA~AJ... ve,{Ti1...ATICN 5HALL 5E Tf-l~Ci.Jot-l V'\lNDOre D~S. ~:::'XJY'E.."'.5 CF. OTI-JE.~ AFF:i<.OVI:.:'.' OF~NlNG-S TO ,->4E Cv WO~~ A!!'<. =:f.JC·- OPL'~IN6=:c Sf-i!A!..L. SE F"ROVIOEV i"(ffi-l READY AG.GE% CR. 51-11-LL OIHffb"l:Se er: R.EADILY ~aNTR::,LLPOLE DY THI: :SU!L.C:"~G C.::.C.UF'P4T5 ..,.HE i~rt.,{lt-ii.J'.J Of"[',;ASLF AAEA TO lriE C.;<1JOCR.5 5nALL .5:; .t f"t..i:::.Gt.t.i Of :-HE f....OOR ;,RE.A 5E!NO VENT,LATW.

C::'<.C, s: . .;:.110, R.SOCC,S 5AT!-IRC::JM2' ,·v.TL::.: CL.O:C,f:.T C0MP,"-,<c,1),,1E.:nS ,\.!.? OTf-'ER SJt.·11:...AA ROOMS &HALL BE PROVlDW t'{!TH AGGREGATE ~i-,P,,Z.N.<Sr AR.EA IN Y"11NOCY'i'E> OF NOT L!;SS THAN ;, ;x:.!UAl:?.E FE.;.T (o::. m2). ONE-HALF CF ~lG-H MU~T BE C;ll'EN.c.£3LE. r:xc.er-1'0N -He G-......A.Zt-.:::: ARfA!::> Sf•/·LL N~")T BE ~EC~ ~ED ;·,HERE AAT,FIC(AL LJ(£,HT AND A MECHAN!::.AL VENTILATION SYSTEM Ai:;;>,E ~OVIDED TI-IE V"N1MtJ~~ VE~;JLATT~N RA~ St.iALL !3E 50 OJB!!'.'.: FE~ PER. M!t-lUTI" (24 :_15) FC'<. 1:~-re:Rr-".;TTEh-: VEh7.l.ATl:::N or-:. c.vs,,. FEE.-: PER H!NIJT~ (\2 \,a) FC~ C0h-;]NUO..i5 VE.NTILATl:JN. VENTILATION AIR FR.OM THE $PAGE 5HAL.1. BE E/H,,l,U5Tl:D J:li'<..ECTLY , o n~c: a.rr:;:';;,e.

PROVIDE SI-IOY's=-R HE.ADS Yl:TH A MAXJJv!(JM FLO),'i OF 2.~ '71'U.CNS f't:..i:t MINL.ITE SPM}
5H0r"i!:R C..OMPA~T't--!ENTS AND SATHiUBS }l';!TH IN5T;,'l,J,.LE'"D 6H0;'1!:R He.ADS SMALL SE FNJSHE!? til"!"I-! A NOt,,JAB~E•n 5L~FACE THAT ~DS THE TO l-l6G!-IT CF "~OT _:255 -:-~,A,~(.,, F"EET AS0'<'l:: THE. i:wc~. Sr:~. R£.C"'l.2 ::',"ii=LL !16$, ,'-NO 6/~6'.: !:;:t-lN_L SE 51:F'l,~ATB.? PEF C.OUN-:"'( BU .DING COD!." "'.2.2RS026, CBC /;:)49
PA~CEL INFO~MATION
ADC:~e-5 403 PACIFIC. AYE.
;;',OL.ANA 6f;AC.H, CA "l'.2015
TOTAL LOT 51ZE 1'.2b<? 5f
LOT '::>\ZE HINUS [~ODE:;) ~FA l,,1q::;, SF
EROOED AREA YE.ST Of' T.0. BLLJFF 465 SF
F.ARKiN.(:o 5PACl=S: b E.xJSTING TO Ft!=MAJN (Zl:.RO
ADDIT.ONAL PROP~ED)
LANDSGAPiN6 1.Df:O 50. FT. EXISTING (NO NE,"; OR
ALTERED LANDSGAP1N6 15

PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT)
PAVED AREA .2,3'15 sa. FT. EXISTING (NO NEY-I. OR
ALTERED PAYING 15 PROPOSED FOR

THIS PROJECT)
E.X5T. 4 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 4,915 ~- FT.

FRONT:
5!VE YPRD
REAR: 40 FEET FROM THE TOP EDGE OF
ANY COASTAL BLLiFF
-OV'iE:....LIN6 STR!JCTl..RES MAY BE B:JIL T TO )l';ITl-l!N 25 FEET OF THE TOP EDGE OF A COASTAL BLUFF, BASED UPON A."I ENG1Nf:ERJN6 GEOLOGY REPORT PREPARED SY A DULY LICENSED E'-lG!NEERING PROFE55lONAL A.~D H!JST COMPLY V"RTH SSMC 11.20050 (E)(l)
MAX ALLO,~V.SLE HEIGHT:

Ov'E~LAY ZONE DE51GNATiO't:
35'-0"
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT ZONf:;
SCALED RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY;

GITY OF SOLANA BEACH
E»S';;NG t PROF05ED REMODEL !5' NON~SPRl!-.KLERED
f!..QCi<. AA=A CA.:...0JLATIQN5
E'ASTING FIRST FLOaR LIV!N6 A~EA
F!R.S7 FLOQR LIVING A~EA A?DITION
EX-S-flN6 5EC.OND FLOOR. LIVIN6 AREA
SECOND FLOOR :..IVIN6 .AREA ADDiT!ON
E><tSTING G.ARAGE
G1$.A6E ADDITION
EXIST1NG C,0\/ER!:D 4 E~CLCSED PATIO
ADU
Sl!STOT AL OF FLO~ AAEA
1,410 50. FT.
050 FT
1,b-55 '50. FT.
050. FT.
b90 SQ. FT
osa. FT.
no sa. FT
0 50. FT
QFF::5:TREEJ PARKING EXfMPTIQN (:2 5P.AGE5J -400 SQ. FT TOT,',L E.Xl5TlNG/?DROP05ED FLOO-.:. AR.5' s.ses sa. FT, MAXF.AR. C.A:...C5 (BASED ON LOTS!ZE M!NUS ERODED AREA:: 0:1<:fS so< FT.) LOT AREA. X 0.500
(FOR THE FR5T b,000 SO. FT.J 5,000 50. FT
LOT AREA X 0.1i5 (FOR. POR"flON
OF LOT 6 OOi UP TO 15 000 50 FT.) 1091.25 SQ FT
MA.XJMUM F .A.R.. = 0.109.1:?5 5G. FT.

PROJECT DIRECTO~Y
C:,""NE!=l
PE"fa< AND SARAH BA rrs 403 PACIFIC, AVENUE.

SOLANA BEACH, GA C\20'15
~I
RE661E Rf:Yl:5. AJA

REYES STUDIO
1566 HUNTERS POINTE /..VENUE
CHULA VISTA. GA 9l't13
FH. 05::>,<=JZ!.b;!4b
!M.,IA!J,.: ft.RI:'fE5oREYESS11JDIO.C..Ot-1
1-"lEEIS1TE Y'W'W~ R.EY"ESSnJDIO.COt-1
SJJRy;E't'OR
JOHN VAN RYN. PE. PL5
VAN RYN ENG!NEERJNG, INC.
16166 BERNARDO GENTER DR..
5AN DIEG-0. CA "1212D
PH: l>SD.361.3504
E-MAIL: JOHNoVANRYNENG-.COM
CODE ANAL Y515
TYPE QF CQNSTRlJC.T!QN
TYPE V-6 NON-5PR1Nl<LERED

APPLIGASLE COPES
GON!Rt'::f:T'OR

JEFF SHITH
::MITH 6ROTHER5 C.ON5TR.!JC.T!ON
444 S. GEOROS AVENUE
SOU-NA BEJ,CH. GA "1.2:)15
EMAJL.: JEFFSMITHi>
5M!TI-JSROTHER5GONSTFWC.TION.C.OH
SOILS ENG!NEER
.JAY I<.. HEISER
GEOTEGHN!CAL EXPLORATION, !NC.

14.20 TRADE STREET
SAN DIEG-0, CA "-1.2121
PH: C,5C,.54Cl,1222
E-MAIL: JHEISERoGEI-SD.COM
ALL ¥'ORK PERFORMED UNDER TH!5 GONTRAGT SHALL BE !N
AG-CORDANGE Y'i!TH THE .2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA GODE OF REGULATIONS (TITLE .24) t"IHIC.H INCLUDE:

THE 2022 C.ALIFORN!A BUILDING GODE (CBC)
THE .2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL GODE (C,RC,)
THE .20.22 C.AL!FORN!A ELECTRICAL CODE (CEGJ
THE .2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANIC.AL GODE (C,MC,)
THE .2022 C.AL!FORN!A PUJMSING GODE (CPC)
THE .2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY GODE
THE .20:U CALIFORNIA FIRE GODE (c.FC)
THE .20.22 GAL!FORN!A GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
ALL YiORK SHALL SE DONE !N AGGORDANCE Y'i!TH THE CITY'S MUNlGIPAL GODE

VICINITY MAP
5COPE OF r"IORK
REMODEL TO EXl5llHG :l STORY SIN0LE FAMILY ~Dl=NGE.

RLPL.AG,!.: [;..Xl~~ING, V{NDc:,·.;s, oc:ORs ROOf- N.6 ll SIDING A.D:7 N&'< WlNDOr'6 TO BcDROOM 3, t..AUNDRY R.00},f t POYiDER ROOM. INTERIOR l"\AJ..L FAATITIC1N MODIF!CATIONS, NfYi 61-5 FIREPU,::.E TO REPLACE £:.XJSTII',.::;

SHEET INDEX
6ENE'RAL
T1 TITLE SHE.ET
OVIL
C.1.0 SlTESU~VEY

ARGHITECTVRAL
A1.0 SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Al.1 SITE PLAN
D.2.1 DEMO MAIN LEVE.. FLOOR PL.AN
D2.2 DEl--'O UFPER. LEVEL FLOOR PL.N-.

A.2,! EXt5TING/PROP05EV MAJN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
N.2 EXJ5TING/PR.OP05ED U"'PE"Fc LEVEL FLCOR p._AN
A.2.3 ROOF PLAN
A2A HAIN LEVEL ;'{ALL NODrF;c..ATICN PLA.'i
A.2.5 UPPER. LEVEL V'{,'.LL MOD!F!C.ATION Pl.At,
M.i ~iQR ELE\l'ATlONS
A4.2 EXTE~IOR. ELEVATIONS
M.5 EXfER;QR ELEVATIONS
A4.4 EXTI'.RtoR ELEVATIONS
A5.1 BUILDING SECTIONS
5YM6OJ.. LEGEND

ELEVATION MARKER

SECTION MARKER
------

WINDOW TYPE INDICATOR
DOOR TYP~ INDICATCR

MATCH LINE/DATUM POINT
$---~,,..:::- -

REVISION INDICATOR
F,EVISION ll·JOICf, TOR
,r·-.v----"'~•=-,
~'
T1
TITLE SHc:IIT
b/21/.2024
I i
I I
\\
\\\\\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\
\
\
\
403 PACIFIC AVE. - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
~0£NS£
1£GETAHI£
AREA
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
\.

LEGEND:

FOfJND MONUMENT AS N01FD
BOUNDARY UN£
•
ADJC!INING PROP/117'1 WI£

ROAD CENTERUI/E
EX. £AS£l,i£NT UN£
EX. ROOF 01£RHANG

EXISHNG CONTOUR
SPOT ELEVA »ON
EX. CONcRETE
[X. ASPHALT PA,£/,/[NT
EX. 1REE
f:X. PAL,/ TREE
EX. RtTAINING WALL
EX. 51RUCIUR£
.llllll ---·--"
EX. NEIGHBORS 51RUC7lJR£
FE/IC[ LJN[ \\00')
EX. WA IER 1/AIN --w--w-~
EX. WA IER IIITER [jKl]
EX. FIRE HWRANT KXl
IXl
□
~
EX. WATER VALi£
EX. unuTY BOX
EX. SDGE VAULT
EX. POIIEJ1 UN£S
EX. POY,fR POLE
EX. FLOW UN£
cc: --cc: -
--0-
ABBREV/A T/ONS: EX..... . ....... EXIS11NG
Fe ... FINISH FLOOR
FS..... .. .......... RN/SH SVRFAC£
GS......... .. ......... Gi/OUND SHOT
Tw..... . .... /UP OF WALL
BW....... .. ...... .BOTTO/,/ OF n'ALL
SJ./H. ........ .. ... SEIIEJ1 1/ANHOLE
FIL..... . ..... FIR£ HYDRANT

55........... . .......... SANITARY S£1IER 1111 ............................. WATER METER WV .......................... WAIER VALi£
EC........ . ......... £/JG£ OF CONCRITE
TC ...... TOP OF CURB
FL....... . ...... .FLOWUI/E
CIIU... . ... C-ONCRITE MASONRY UNIT
C-ONC ....................... CONCRETE
AC..... . .......... ASPHALT CONCRETf
BWG..... . ..... BU/WING
APN ........................ ASS£SSOR PARCEL NUMBER NO .......................... NUMBER PP .............. ............. POIIEJ1 POLE
RE.FERENCE MAPS: IIAP NO. 2143
CR NO. 25326
GRAPHIC SCALE, r· = 10•
1b r-~6 ,b 20
CLIENT INFORMATION: SJ./1/H BRolHfRs c0Nsmucno11 P.0 BOX 1068 SCLANA BEACH, CA 92075
OWNER INFORMA T/ON: P£1£R BA/ES
4179 HcRITACi£ HILL LA/If
ElL1COTT CITY, MO 21042
~
SITE lNFORMATION.-
4CJ PACIFIC A\£ Seu.NA 6£.ACH, CA 92075
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

SHEET 1 OF 1
mt 253-051-!17
r:JiU; 7,260 S.F. / 0.JSJ ACR£5
LOT I, 1// BLOCK ,, SotAIIA ~CH llSTA. IN TH£ arr OF SOLANA BEACH, CO'JNTY OF SAN Df!GO. STAJf OF CA/.JFORNIA, ACCCRDING TO IIAP THEREOF' 214J, FILED IN THE: OFFICE OF THE COO/JTY RfCORDER OF SAN D/£GO counrr CECEJIBfJI 11. 1g2a
SURVEY NOTE: SUR\-fY CC,J,1Pl.£7fIJ fJY:

VAN R»I !NG//;WIIN(;, 11/C
16765 ii81HARDO Cf/111'1/ !1!1., SlE 115 SAN /JfEGO, CA 92128 85&521.8100
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

OATE CCAIPLETfD: 10/Jt/2023
TH£ BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS St/Ran' IS THE CAUFtllNIA COMDIN'A1E S'f'S1DI, CCSBJ. Za<E 6. f?oal 1991-J5. AND IS DCTERl,i!NED BY GP.S. /,i:;""-StJREl,lf:NTS TAKOI OIi NOlfMWI 7, 2/l.ZJ Ci' CITY Qf SCU/IA llfACH Gl'S CON11?a. PflHT NO. 2001 "SOlB-1'' NID 2012 '!NC-4.3", PER ROS. NO, 16971. 80111 H,t,W/C A FIRST M0ER OR 8£Trt.R VAWES. mi. e!AfuNG FR&U PaNr "SO£.B.r ro Po.NT 'ENC--4.r/S N 20· J8' 51" w. ooara, BEARINGS fR('M fiiHRENCE IIAPS OR DEEDS MAY CR AI.AY NOT EE fN iERUS OF SAID Sl'STIJJ.

THE COll8N£D GF?!D FACTOR AT ,.SOCB-1" IS 0.99997420. $RfJ D!STA.NCE = GROO!ID !JISiANCE x caJBiNiD GRJD FACTOR. El.EVA1100 AT "SctB-1"::::: 71.450 {NA.\-PBB) BASIS OF ELEVATIONS: 8.£VA.110N5 SHO'MI HfRE-CW ME BASED CW CITY OF SOl.AJIA BEACH GPS CCMJi?Ct PT. NO. 2,xn, .. sot.B-T~ PfR R.O.S. ND. 18971
LOCADOO AND T'rPf: 2.5· r:1TY OF Sa.ANA BEACH BRASS DISC OH C0NCR£TC DRAINAGE lNl£T ON TH£' EAST SHOUl.£fR <£ HfGHWAY tm, 0.1 Wll£S SOOTH OF LCMAS SANTA Ff DRf\£ EIEVA RlW: 71.<50 (NA lfJ 88)
SURVEY NOTES: I. 1H£ PROP£/ITY BOUNDARY SHOiW HEREON 15 1H£ R£SIILT OF A PRECISE RETRACEJ.1£/ff OF 1H£ PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABO\£. A PRCY'..£1JUR£ OF 5LJRl£Y DEFIC11NG PHYSICAL £\WENCE AND UEASU/1£11£/1T DATA IS AVAILABLE: FOR RE\1EW UPON REQUEST.

2. THE LOCATIONS OF UND£RGROU/ID UHUTY UHfS AHO/OR
STRUCTURES AS SHO~N H£R£OII AR£ BASED Cl/ OBSERl£0
ABO\£ GR/X/110 f.ll0£NCE: ANO RECORD 11/FCNIMA 110N PROl1DED TO THE 5URl£'fOR. NO EXCAVATIONS l!Ell£ MAO£ OUR/NG 1H£ COURSE Ci' THIS SUR\U TO LOCATE UNDERGROUND UllUilES.

LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UT/UHES IIAY VARY fR(JI.(
LOCAllONS SHO!m HEREON. ADD/HOtiAL UIIDERGROUHD UTTUTIE5 MAY EXIST.

J A PREIJl,/11/A/IY mt£ REPORT WAS PR0\1DED er FIRST Al/ERICA/I ml£ COIIPANY DA mJ SEPTEIIEiR 02. 2020 ORDER NUIJBER:

D/V-6368109
Cl.O
VICINITY MAP ~.r.s
CIVIL ENGINEERING! LA~O SURVEYING
S;:in Dieg;;, I M.iritec.i I 858 ::.67.35(.'<!
wnryneng1neering com
I
I
\
\
13 ~ _ _ _ _ N 78d 07' oo· E _ 124.59' __ _ _______ _ 1 ~; . ·~ ·- .. - .. -· ·-_,;-;·-· ··-· .t... __ , ~ - • • • • • ·- ' - ·- • - · • - .- "· ~-l--- - -- --- 7 ' ~
'===::::-
1 -~
' <,
;
'
I
I
- -
12 =~
-
7 / z LANDSCAPE

HAADSCAPE COURTYARD
- ~) LANDSCAP(b 5
-
- -f WALKWAY LANDSCAPE I
.,. DRIVEWAY
LA,_,DSCAPE ----

WALKWAY
/

LANDSCAPE
- - - I
- - I - - -...J
10 11
f--- m<EET CURB
(1
~ LU
"' ::)
~ z
"' " ~ <(
'-1 6 Li:

G 5 1 ~
r SIDEWALK
k--- STREET CURB
1 2
8 3
Cf 4
original Date: ---
~ !•Ion 01 : ---
f'eVision0-4: __ _
1'eVl•lon05: ---
l'tevislonOb: __ _
~•lon01: ---
rJ) 0 "' E
"' ~
~ -:, ] f.- ~ 0 u
' ~ - "'
0 r- ~
~ :,: ~
"' E-< u d
'°
"'
~ "' "l
co
rJ) < ,_~
co
ALO
SITE PHOTO 5URV!:Y
12/22/2023
,,,.---~"'-,
(E) CH IMNl::T ----, I 1 \
T" R.E1''AIN ~
~ ,... \ S "15° 46' 54" I'{ 124.E,O' V !"RO""Ef"T'( LINE \ - -T - - -. - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - -:--\-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:r-- \ !1 (E) PLANTER \ ·- ~ I· \ SETBACK L.INE. \
\
\
\
\
~~- {E' 42" OOAR°"AJL
\
\
\ (EJ STO~-lE
PAr;OTO
R.EMAIN
/ ./EXISTING 2 STORY

SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENCE -
fNTERIOR REMODEL

Y'IITHIN EXISTING

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E/ PLANTER
(e)CONC,,
.. ~Y
EXISTIN6 9 GAR

ATTACHED
GARA6E
(E)IS-ASC
ELEC.TR.:C
Mt:TERS
(E)ROOF
OVEF?HAN(S.
------7 (E)

LANDSCAPE (E) LAINDSGAPE
(E:) CONGFtET!:. '
DP:!V~AYTC
REHAlN
I
I
1 I
I
ml
~ I ~-.
:- I ~, ,n I
·e- -----
\
\
\
BLUFF
UJ I z
DN
{E) PLANTER
:::i I
?: I
W(i~ I (E) STONE (E) 5TON'E
(E) PATIO TO PATIO TO
! PLANTER REMAIN DN ----➔ REMAIN [i f
I o. I
(EJ PLANTER
\ L '-----+-----~ I \ - - '. .. :· 0 (E) PLAINTER ::~:: , 1 ~ ., tg j' ---... -- 5 i
._ ........ ':I.. (E) LANDSCAPE
----- I ! I ----i--- ~~ ~ff~,--!
2 ~;;;,-- - !i~en,_Ac;,, LIN_e, •
'A51 • LINE - - -- ........ ... .... U) 0 f }..:
1/) QJ I N ......_._ -- .Im 8qo :21:,• 1q" E' - --.o:\- -. / (E) FENGE 11:20o, ----'.,_ i ---------- I ------ J ------- SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" • S'-0"

FIRE NOTES

1. !f,OTES: AN APPROVED EMERGENCY l<EY-OPERATl:.D SV'{ITGH AND/OR. AN APPROVED EMER.6ENC.Y TfltA.rf'IG GONlROL•ACTIYATIN.6 ~l'ROSE Ll6Hi eEN5of:t SHAU. 61: lNSTALU:O f't:R THE SOLANA SE.Aal /vfl.JN!CIPAL COt:JE nTLE 15 BU/Lt:JIN6 AND CON5TRUCTION CHAPTER 15.32 FIRE CODE !5EC710N 50!'.6. ALL KNOX BOX F'ROC,VGTS SH,o.LL !3E PURGHASEO THROUGH SOLANA BEACH FIRE i"I.EBSITE. :l. a95TF,UCT1CN C,F l:.!.O@l-'-IAYS ptJR!N6; ~N$UC-1J9N: ALL F<OA1'YiAY~ SHALL BE A MJNINUM OF~ FEE:T IN YilDTH .OUR.ING C.ON.5TRUGTION AND MA!NT AlNED FREE AND CLEAR, INGLUDIN6 THE PARKJN6 Of VEHICLES PER THE 20.:U CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE CHAP'TcR S SECTION 503.4 .A.NP SOS..2.1. ~- ,',.OOR.ES-S NUMBERS: STREET NUMBERS: ~ovro NUMB6'5 AND/OR ADI"JRES!?:iS SHALL SE PLAGED ON ALL Nf:Y'-l AND- E.X15T!NIS- 6UIL.DlN65 AfID AT APPROF'Ft.lATE ;li,DDITIONAL LOCATIONS A5 TO BE PLAlMLY VISIBLE AND LEC!,IBLE FROM THE: STREET OR f-?.OAOJl"{AY FRONTINIS THE PROPERiY FROM ErrHER.

Ol~EGIION OF APP'R.OACH. SAID NUH6ER9 !:!HALL CONTRAST V-UTH THEIR 6ACK6RCVND. AND SHALL MEET THE FOLLOl-'-IIHG MlNIHUM ST ANDAR.DS AS TO StZE, 4" H!GH r'IITH A ½~ !NCH STROKE r-llDTH FOR RSIDE.t-r:1AL SUJWIN-55. o·· HIGH Y'ilTH A ½z" $TROKE FOR COHHEP..C!AL AND HiJl..:n-FAHll..Y Re:llDE.NTIA.l..

BUILDINGS, t::l:~ HIG-H V'l!TH A 1" STROKE FOR INDIJSTR.IAJ.. 8UlL.C'ING5, ADDITIONAL NUMBERS SHALL BE I R.E2.JIRED 1-"iHERE DEEMED NECESSARY 6Y THE FIRE MAH.SHAL, St.JCH ,t,.Ji;, REAR AGGE55 DOORS.

BUILDING- CORNERS, AND ENTRANCES, TO GOMMERCIAI.. GENTcRS PER Tt-!E 20,Z:J C,,.\i../FOR.NIA FIR!: CO.OE CHAF71!R ~ SECTION :?05,1,

4. CL~!i ~A~ ROOF: ALL STRUC.TIJRI:f:, SHA.LI.. BE: f"ROVIDED VilTH A CLAS$ ~A~ R.OOF COVERING 10 THE SATISFACTION OF THE SOLANA BEACI-I FIRE DEPARTMENT AND P81! THE XJ:22 CAL/Fc;,,r:i!N/A l3!.JILJ:JIN6 COJ:)E Cf-/APT£r/! 1:3 Sl=CT!ON 1505.
(E) SIDEl"W..K
I? --(E) STREE-:" CURE
C/1 o :
w ' -
A1.1
$lie PLAN
b/::211202.-!
-1-- - -:---
-- ~.~ ~--~ - ~!~-: ~ --- - --- - --- - - - - - - - --- - --- - - - - - - - --- - --- - - - - --- - --- - --- - - - - --- - --- - - - - --- - --- - - \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ ' \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
TO, SLU:-'F
\ ' \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\__
\
\
-----
~ ~~ro
,,// RleMAlS PEt-10 • REPI.ACE ,, AC
\
\
\
--...:...... i --· --
111
1111
IJf
m
Iii
w
i
I
I
J.
---
/ - p::;:-.EYIC._;5 (E) YilN::;:>OV'iS 4
'~--~•-· ~ F~E.'PLAC,E EXTI:RIOR DOORS,
_, .. <1 LOGA110N TYP. \ k s;-· - ~-- - -- -- - _:'[~A~-·~~r:- ,I ·1-------~, 'I ,------7 \
~--~ L--~ - DL:1'-10 (f.)BU'-T-INS ///\
/ \
Ii I/
ENTRY

BEDROOM
..e-:::- OJTUNE OF FLOOR
/ .ASCVE TC REMAJN
/
' / \ //
lf
--
, KITCHEN
---.................
-------
-...
\
\
(E) 5TRJ..:C-T. --
5TEEL P0;5T
TC REHAJJ:4
\
----
FAU
:::
\
\
---------
-... ----
__ ,_,_,_, __ ~ __ DEMOLITION Jv1AIN LEVEL PLAN , _____ ,, _______ , _________ , _________ , 1 SC.Al...I::.: 1/4'' = 1'-0' -~-·_,,, r-------1

TANKLESS WH
-------
C.AS & ELECTRICAL METERS
(E)6X6 POST
._,J
----
-... -----
z
0 ~
~
<
> '-I,
0 r--- rT) 0
~ ~ 01
,,_) °'
z < ri:i u > ~
~ <::c
uU u ,_ <
z ;::: ~
v~ ~ << Q P..z
~ (")<
Vl o....l
~ """ 0
r:/)
Vl
~
~
<
co
D2.1

DEMO MAIN
LEVEL

FLOOR PLAN
6/.21/20;..4
--:----r------------1,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 l ,- -- 1Nr1~L I ~~~N;;\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I • J.'i!NDC~ S!:TBAGK LiNE,2~ FOR NEri 1 • 10"
V \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =-=r -fl'IIN!,O""" ~~ - - - - - - - -=l--F\::;J....,/~H~----/;-&-.,1,;iJ-,!-t]. \
\
\
\
\ \
\
\
V \
\
\
\ TO.BLUFF --s,.,
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
\
\
'"1 r - --<f iz- - -'! ~ - -: - ~ . [::::i 11 c:1? ,-, ~ ,- -f. /PT'il n 11 (('!)) •X
\ I \
J..
(E) MASTER

BEDROOM
\
DN H
u
ll..dl 1111 I[ _________ ., V
(E) LAUNDRY !iii I I fr.. (E) BA TH
II 11 // \
C = = ::J .JL... I lb h :J
r,
II
11 II
u
(E) BEDROOM
\ \
I \ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
I
\
\
\
I
'-- \ -- I --........ \ -- • ------~ ------
\
\
\
\
I
.... -.........
----
..... : .. .; :o,-'-,J.1,-,i-LJ-{
'L'NFILL
l'ilNDOY'(
--... -----...
\
I
--
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
\
l
---------... -......_ -... --
__g~ISTINGIDEJ:::iQ UPPER LEVE__b FLOOR P__bAN----(1·! SCl'I..E: 1/4" = 1'-0" ... __ ... _
---
I
~ I
)l I
~I
:ill
I
I
I
c/:L 0 "'
~:-"'.
:)-,,,/ 0 : /'
ii"
~I : x
• lb
~ir..,J

02.2 DEMO UPPER
l.EVEL.

Fl.OORPLAN
61211.2024
\
\
\
\
' \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\..__ ----.......... __
\
\
(N) V{!i.\oO,"I -
firTHIN EXlSTlNG
OPENINiS V~DTH
--------
blVINGRM
OUTLINE OF= FLCOR
ASOVE
DET""....RMINE MIN:f..1UM
LENGT!-' OF Y{.A.LL

REQ'D PER
STRlJC.TlJRAL
8-.IGINEER
- ----.. ·~0p3.-
--- --~.._,,E
------
INFILL
Y',!N::'OYi
---
\
\
ENTRY

BEDROOM
'--- (E) STRUC':.
r
I
\
--(NJ h2NDOV,
Y'\ITHIN
E'A5-:-1NG

OPENING-
---
I
----

STEEL POST
TO RENAIN I REPLACE -~1
DOCR5t"l!THIN
(E) OPENING
(E)-STONE

PATIO TO

REM'AIN
.... ...._,_.... lf1
... ---- .... i -. ......... ~ ...... -

EXISTING / PROPOSED HAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
--
----,------7,------------ ', (E)AC I
---
\, 'i I
I
(E) 6XbP-05T
(E) T ANKLE55 l-"1H
----------
_J
(E) 01'$ 4
ELEGTR!GAL.

METERS
--~-- REPLACE
DOOR5Y'-i!THIH
(E)OPENING
-------
Y'lALL LEGEND
- =--=i NEV\' CONSTRUCTION Whll
_x~".'.'"'-" EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
c= -- EXISTINGWALL TOBE DEMOLISHED
~ 1--1
~
~
> l.(')
0 r--
U.'l 0
~ >-----, l'.'1
.,_J 0\
~<
> u~
~ -<t'. ::c uU u ,_,<
~ == Cl.l u ::0
-< -< Q ~ z
1--1 M<i::
r/J o,
'tj",-...,
~ 0
r./)
r./)
~
~
~
~
~*
I AL.1 1:

EXt:,TIN<=o/F'ROPO&ED,

MAIN LEVEL ''

FLOOR PLAN
/-
~+ ----~--------------+-----------------~F'~:::!:'~------------------------ \
--
1 I
' \
I
\ 0
REFLAGE (E) --~-~
-00~5/ViNDC>~
ho IH 0-~J DOOR.5
-..._
I
\
\
------\ I
--
~ INFILL
I J/'ilNDOY'i

I - - - I
I 1: I t \ r ""·
-,~
~ \
\
-- ' - ---- .... - ~Op~~fy I
........_ __ -:··~
- REPI..ACE/f.J
~~~~~ ~lt~:E)
OPeN!N& I
Bl. I
I
I
\~;NFIL:-
\
I 4 l"{IN170V'I
I
\
\
--...__ -..._ --...__ .................... ----
-------------
EXISTING / PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN G) 1 SC.ALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ; !
r-1-
--'-
ii
.l
ii
j
1_L
;1
lo--
,1
71 ..J
I
I
I
Y'iALL LEGEND
. . NEW CONSTRUCTION WALL
= EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
c===::i EXISTING WALL TOBE DEMOLISHED
5 1---i
~
~
> rn
0 t'-
ClJ 0
z - N
,_.) °'
~ z < ClJ u > ' ~ <:::r:
uU u -<
ffi µ.. ~
0 o:i
<< Q ~z
I"-! M<
r./), 0-i
~ '::f'"o
~
V,J
crJ
~
~
<C
~
EX15TIN<$/PROP05ED
~ UPPER LEVEL

FLOOR PLAN
f,/21/2024
Y.0.
\
\
65' w 111/1}~
63' 51/D'
\__REaJE5TIN~
APf'RO\lALVO
:ADP NEJ.'i 2'"'4'
SKYLISHT. ,
OSG.F..,.. OF ROOF
MO.DF!~T~N
\
t:
.25· - 1 vc~
MAlNTAIN (E) ROOF OR
REPLAC,E (E) ROOF ri!TH
(N) ASPHALT OR
SIMULA TED SHAKE ROOF;
V'iOOD SHINGLES NOT
ALLOT"iED. NEY-.i ROOFING
TO BE C.LA55 "A'

EXISTING ROOF PLAN
SC.ALE: i/4" "' 1'-0"
25'-0 1/4"
'
10'- b!IB"
e,5 SCx FT. OF
GAR.AGE MAIN LE /EL
~oar- FtEHOVED
$11011\'N IN 1141!::i
d/..,TGt1t:O ARE.A
z
0 ~
~
<
> V")
0 r---
w Ri
~ :::> °' :Z:. -< ~ p:J u > ~
~ <I'.'. :r uU u ._ <
~ ~ p:J
u O'.)
-< < Q ~ z
i--,j ("<)<
VJ. o....:i
~ 70
~ rzi
VJ.
~
t'--1
<
co
-
- V
w
-;_. -=
~ .-.,
- h< -
-
GJ ~I
•:
?
f-1
- ~j
~k-j C;
A2.3
~oor PLA.N
________________ ., ___ _
\
\
I \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
i
I
":-t)Y'IN:?OV'i
i"IITulH
!::XlS11N6
OPEN:t,6
C
\
K 67' .e, 3/4"
I
I
I
I
\
I
6E'Dl'1.00M
F
/E)STO'<E

PATIO TO
R.EHAIN
E
6Al'1.A61:

I::

G I
-··-··-···-·-·-----MAIN L_E_V_E_L_~_L_L_Jvl_O_D_I_F_IC_A_T_IO_N_F_L_A_N_(1) SC.ALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ·~· 0 J
0 --- -_j
MAIN L.EVEL V'l.ALL.
!v!ODIFiGATION GALGULA TIONS
L ___ ..J -L 31"•1 ::,y4• _ I 0·-a~ 31'-; 3/4'
K I e,;'-D 9/4" I o·-o~ e,1•~e 314"
UPPER LEVEL V'lAL.L

MODIFICATION GALGULATIONS
i YW..L- T~: EXS~~L !H~:i:-1-1 v:_~~i~H I
t--· a I :;;,:,•., a14• ,., a v4• I o· 11 '/Z'
I st -,-s•-0-• ----s-._;,-_-...... -,4-:-v-,.-' ---<
,-- 35-'-5 3/e," 2''-4~
[-
[-
5 T .j._":~10:_ 10'-2 S/tY
TOTAL EX..;:,11N0 f"lAU... 1..EN0Tri
(MAJN LEVEL + UPPER LEVEL) :;:

TOTAL HODIF!E.D YWJ.. LEN6TH
(MAIN LEVRL t VPF..R LEva,::;
PERGENTA6E QF Y'!AL.L HODIF!ED::
493•...q 1/4''
,fJ
I*
\IJ) ~,:
- --~
A2.4
MAIN l.E:VEL.

Y'Al..l.
r,,fODIFIC.ATION
PLAN
bl::1. 1120:J.4
\ QEB:l_JQ I "'' ~~ -
~b-:::t! \ '' X \ y "" ": ce,' ~;;31 /4 0 1/
\
,t) - 1/f-"+- A,/2'
_,,// C f ,, ..
,,,,,,-'?>~!
I
I
-.o,
/
MASTER

BEDROOM
ART
M. BATH
C.LE.RE5"':'"0RY
Y\lNDOVt .ABOI.E
iNFILL
,"{!'-;DOV\
X
(E) STAIR HALL
OPENlNC;rS
(E) BEDROOl-1 4
(N) BEDROOM 3
11'-0"' X 10'-C,"
0 J<~· 4J © H- ⇒- //©
I ROOF BELOV'i /
as· -5 e_/o_· __ ~=:+. _______ /_/_JJ=eas
UPPER LEVEL V'lALL Jv!ODIFIGATION PLAN
SC.ALE': i/4" c 1'-0"
in
1 )
u
SI
I
F
MAIN LEVEL V'lALL
MODIFICATION CALC.ULA TIONS
JMCDIFIE::5 •• YiA:L:_.·
LEN.6TH
A
B
21'-1'.J 3/4" j_ ____ 1b'-..::' __ ~-bS/C
1D'-4 1/4" , ;i'-51'/,C I 15'-10 1/2''
C,
D 2'-51/0"
1:. _1r-q_·1;?" ___ I o·-c·:__ 11 q1r
;-- ---p ·--y 1'-3 1/2" o·-o· r ,.~~ 1/;--1
(;r j 3'-0 :'JO" "" ! O'..C :;: -0 3/0
I ~·-2 111>· o·-o· s·-2 v&• ·1
J I er-1 3/4 o·-o~ 31•-1 ~/4• I
r --;z --1·· o1·-[; 3/4~ o·-c f;-; -5 ?,/,!··
__ L ___ _J_ ::a-s 112· _
1 _ 24•-,. v2·• ] ,,._,,. ____ __l
tvl I 1'-S 3/4" 0'-0 ': -3 3/A

UPPER LEVEL MLL
MODIFICATION CALG.JLA TION:;,
V
X
y
z
AA
TOT.Al..S
.2'-i 1/iY
5'-107/D"
SO'-b 5/!Y
2'-113/4
M'-0-
I
o-o·
0'-0-
0-C
44'-~ 7/C"
TOTAL Ex!STING- ~ LENS-T4-i
(MAit... LEVEL ,. UP-PER LEVEL) =
TOT AL MODIFIED Y'iALL LENGTH
(MAIN LEVE!... .., UPPER LEVEL) =
PERCENTAGE OF l"lALL MODlf=IED =
_ I .2'-57/Y
! 10'-.25/0"
I .2-71/D11f-13/0"
433·~ i/4"
~
[:J [_,,.,
l'
A2.5
UPPER L.EVl;L.
l"IA!..L.

YODlrlC.ATION
PL.AN

61.:..1120~
TR.r-1 Bl".CK re; R..AFTE.'-t. TAIL'::!
~OOF 0'/~HN1G.
:YP.

I
(E) C.HIMNE:Y TO
REMAIN
___ 'is- __ ,._OOFIE'\ I ;oa.~J
• (E) CHIMNEY TO
REt-iAltl
PEPLACE EX!ST1N6 ROOF .... V1;TH 9,HtJLATED SJ:--<AKE
~ ~l~;/~~~~~~~p
• ~-- TRIM BACK (EJ
~·:= ~- I 6~~~i.L~~~COF
' t- ~:b~~~H~~6~~PV-CC
j (E) S'TUGCO. TY?
--""t"- f'l)Mf=--;-AL.C~AD
~IN:DOJ111£, ! DOORS

TOREPLAGE
EX15Tlt-i& TY0
t
i ·· - (fl) F'TD TI<ll-1 AT
!o11NDOW& !
DOOR-:; TYP
'------------;s..------... --------------------lllF==~- £'..AR.AGEL~; ~ L (N) ViOOD C.A51NG \__ (NJ Y'iOOD SECTIONAL __/ L PAINTED. TYP. GAAAGE DOORS TO REPLACE EXlSTiNG. EXISTING 4
GLASS TRANSOMS AND PROPOSED G=tADE
REC.E59ED FLUSH

PANELS - PAINTED
_____________ P_R_O_P_O_S_E_D_E_A_S_T_E_:-~-y-~-/~-.. '~-i'-O_N_' ---jCD

EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
5C.Ai..E:: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6 ~
~
<
> If)
0 t--
~ w:.i ~ ;:J °'
:z; w.;< u > C
~ <:I; u u ~<
z µ;., ~
o~ ~ <<: Q O-tz
~ M<t;
r./J 0 ...:i
gz ""o
rJl
r./J
~
~
<
~
v':'l,o"'
~:...,,,- 'C
. ··,,: 0~
~
c.~l ;J : ;c
' !~
p::;: i C,J '"
A4.1
EXTI:R!OR
ELl=VATION5
b/21/2024
1RIM BAGK (EJ

RAFTER TAILS

OVERHANG TYP
(E)4;2" H6T.
6\JAADRAIL
~eMAIN
{E.) CH:HNEY TO
Ft.ENA!N I
! INF!._J~ re) l"\INPOr'\S
I
I
--1------
I
1------
[XJ5T)t-.G 4
FROPOSf:D GRADli
,-- RJ:Gc.,•f:STIN:S
1 \ P~Ml&S!ON 1'0 ADD I \ TH!:;$1::;: Y'ilNDOY'e
- -·- - --.. ···- --- - ~~~ ~ ~
,,,---··---RePLACCE EXJ5TJN6 I _,,,,,,..- R.OOFY'i!TH

SIMULA TED SHAKE
ROOF (OR S!t-11L..A..l:;:.)
OR MAINT.AJN
E..Xl5Ti~-i5 RCOF
- - ----,--- ;~~~~~ 4 ROOF I OVER.-iN--16 TYP.
'----------(NJ PTO. TRIM AT i )'llfNDOY'iS 4
= I '.700R5. TYP.
----- _______ ,. _____ (NJMETALC.:...AD
I V'i!NDOV'i5 a: DOORS

TO REPLAC-E
E'A571N6. TYP.
:: ' ----~- ---- _UPPER L~E;:_;; ~ ~
,~-·
( /

TRIM BACK (E)
l=tAFTER TAILS 4 ROOF
OYER.HANG TYP
(NJ ViOOD 5H!NGLE
51DlN0 PTP. TO
RE!PLAC,E (EJ
,;n,e,co
I
L- (N_l DOOR.TO
''>-\_ . ~--(N) YiOOD GAS!N!S'
REPLACE PAA< ff:D: Tr?.
0<.l!:>TtN6,·A~T
c>:....ASS ?055;5LY.

TI3D

PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - ENTRY
SCALE 1/4" • 1'-0"
___ E_X_ISTING SOUTH ELEVATION - EN_T_R_Y----;:2\ SC.ALE· 1/4" = 1'-0 '~_./ CD
A4.2

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
--(E) CHIHNE'Y W - f'.EHAIN
REPLAGE EXIST1N6
ROOF V'tlTH SIHWLATW
Sl--tA!( E ROCF (OFc
SIMILAR.) OR HAINT AiN
EXIST'N.6 ROOF
,..-- TRIM BAGI< IE)
/ RAFTER T.AILS 4 ROOF
,_,,,.--- OVER.HAAG. TYP
~~-...a_-....J-J.\~iiiiiiiiiiiill.iiiiiil iiiiiiiiiaa,J ~H=,'JN LEVJ:s'::~ ', I _ <$!!01.0""' ~mACI< LIHe,
LIN~ ANG!...l=S IN VlE:Yi
se:e SITE PLAN
-----=E~X=IS~T~IN~G=----J/'4~E_S_T __ EL~E~V~A~T~l~O~N:;--1 2 ) SCALE, 1/4" = 1'-0"
5 ~
~
~
> tr)
0 r- ~ C
~ ,...., N
_, °' ~ <
>~ ~ -<~
c....,U u -<
z µ., µ;..;
u it)
~ << Q 0--tz
~ M -< 0 1
r./) -.:::t- .....
~ 0
[/]
r./)
w
~
~
co
A4.3
E:XTI;RIOR

ELEVATIONS
~:,~~~ -l'<o---._
ROOF OVE.~~lANG-S.

TYl'.
(f J El.EC,TRIGAL ---
....,-ETT=i' I -l ---~ ---
~::&&t_ rr:. r. .

I
L {EJ 6A5 METER
f1
\__ (E) CONDENSOR
D rr==dJ
Ii 1 D
Rl:GJESTlhG
~~MISSION TO ADD
THESE 2 V"(IN.00>"6
- EXlSTit~G- 4
f"R.OF'OSEDGRADE
(E) C.H~NEY '1D
REMA1N
~ I
. ______ P_R_O_P_O_S_E_D_N_O_R_T_H_E_L_E_Y_A_T_IO_N_,1 ) SCALE, 1/4" = 1'-0" ·~>
t:ioEOL06!C SE"'l'BAGK UNE.

LINE A"l6Lf3 IN ViB"'i.

SE:.E S,TE PLAN
___________ E_X_IS_T_IN_G_N_O_R_T_H_E_LE_Y_A_T_IO_N_~( 21 SCALE, 1/4" = 1'-::r
REFI..ACi:. e.xlSTiNG ROOF
f ~ITH 5!t-1ULATI=D ;HAKE:,
R.C'.?f (CZ 51""~'~;\R) ::)R ! MAINTAIN. 1::XtSilNG ROOF z
0 ~
~
<
;>
0 ~ ~
u
z
~
Q
~
r./1
~ r./1
~
~
<
i:o
~
~
V)
c----
µJ 0 .._ N
,-J O"I
;z: < E9 u ,..,,..
~~
uU
ti: <'.'. ..... ClJ
uo:i
-< <e: ~ z
M,<C
o,
-::t>-<
0 (/)
A4.4
i:XT'l=RIOR
:?LEVATIONS
bl.21120;;.A
LE.Xl5TJNe--e.

F"ROPOSED 6-:RADE
6EOL06!G 5ETSAG!<. L!N.E.

LIJ:':'E AN6LE5_1t-t V.16'.'{.

SEE5!TE. PLAN
(El 42~H GLASS
G\JA"-DRA'L --
L..IYING
ROOt--1
____ _t
rTl ' I
'·
~
OFFICE
'NJ iNTERlOR WALL
.:....OGA§;ONS
5HOffi IN DARK
GROY
M. BATH
(N) FIREPLACE
OE51'GM rao
L1V1NG,; RM
ROOM
I
J
(EJ ATTIG
n
I
(N) BEDROOM S \ ' I
BEDROOM 1

M,BEDROOM

KITCHEN
____________________ S_!_AL_~_T_'.-~-.. N-=_1
·-o-~-____,'~
~-1
BEDROOM 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GARAGE
MAIN LEYi;:¾'1~~~
EXl5TJS.6 4;
PRa°Pi:>5~ GRAGE
k
-J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
~I
~I
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_6~~L~~>:::S:~llll'::==)a===========
L E)<l5T!N64
I

I PROP OS EV GR ADE
z
0 ~
~
~
>
o·
z
~
~
~
u
~ Q
~
Cl)
~
~
r:./'J
~
~
~
co
A5.1
6UILDING

SECTIONS
b/21/2024

REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND COASTAL BLUFF EDGE EVALUATION
Bates Residence Remodel
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
JOB NO. 23-14438
15 January 2024
Prepared for:

Smith Brothers Construction
ii
15 January 2024
Smith Brothers Construction Job No. 23-14438
444 S. Cedros Avenue #170
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Attn: Mr. Jeff Smith
Subject: Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Coastal Bluff Edge Evaluation
Bates Residence Remodel
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
Dear Mr. Smith:

In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the geotechnical and general geologic conditions at the location of the existing residence at 403 Pacific Avenue. Additionally, we have performed a coastal bluff edge evaluation per the requirements of the City of Solana Beach. The field work was performed on November 1, 2023.

In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site preparation, the site will be suited for both the proposed remodel and the new residential improvements.

This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Reference to our Job No. 23-14438 will expedite a response to your inquiries.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
_______________________________ ______________________________ Leslie D. Reed, President Jaime A. Cerros, P.E.

C.E.G. 999/P.G. 3391 R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
4~~- Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 7420 TRADE STREET• SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 2 III. FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................... 3 IV. LABORATORY TESTS & SOIL INFORMATION ....................................................... 4 V. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION ................................................................ 6 VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 6 A. Stratigraphy ......................................................................................... 6 B. Structure .............................................................................................. 7 C. Bluff Observations ................................................................................. 8 D. Bluff Stability and Recession Mechanisms .................................................. 8 VII. PRELIMINARY BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSES ...................................................... 10 VIII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................... 11 A. Local and Regional Faults ..................................................................... 11 B. Other Geologic Hazards ........................................................................ 13 C. Geologic Hazards Summary .................................................................. 14 IX. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................... 15 X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 16 A. Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................... 17 B. Preparation of Soils for Site Development ............................................... 18 C. Design Parameters for Proposed Foundations........................................... 21 D. Concrete Slab-on-grade Criteria............................................................. 24 E. Site Drainage Considerations ................................................................. 28 F General Recommendations .................................................................... 29 XI. GRADING NOTES ......................................................................................... 30 XII. LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 31

REFERENCES

FIGURES
I. Vicinity Map
II. Site Specific Plot Plan and Geologic Map
IIIa-c. Exploratory Excavation Logs
IV. Laboratory Data
V. Geologic Map and Legend
VI. Geologic Cross Section

APPENDICES
A. Unified Soil Classification System
B. Regional Geologic Description
C. Coastal Hazard Report (Geosoils, Inc.)
D. Seismic Design Criteria
E. Slope Stability Analysis
ii

REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND

COASTAL BLUFF EDGE EVALUATION
Bates Residence Remodel
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
JOB NO. 23-14438
The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project.

I. PROJECT SUMMARY
It is our understanding, based on communications with your architect Mr. Reggie Reyes, and review of preliminary architectural plans dated December 22, 2023, that the existing two-story, single-family residence is to be remodeled, including new window and door openings and other interior wall openings. No new foundations are proposed. The new residential remodel is to be constructed of standard-type building materials.

Conceptual plans have been provided to us for use in the preparation of this report, however, when finalized they should be made available for our review. The scope of work we performed is briefly outlined as follows:

1. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils in the area of the proposed construction, in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

2. Make note of any landslides, faults or significant geologic features that may affect the development of the site.

3. Evaluation of existing coastal bluff stability as it relates to the proposed construction.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 2

4. Recommend site soil preparation procedures.

5. Recommend the allowable bearing pressures for the existing medium dense to dense formational soils and properly compacted fills.

6. Evaluate the settlement potential of the existing formational soils or proposed properly compacted fills under the new structural loads.

7. Although no new foundations are proposed, we recommend preliminary foundation design information to be utilized in evaluation of the existing foundations.

Our subsurface investigation revealed that the lot is underlain at relatively shallow depth by medium dense silty sand materials referred to as Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6). The surficial fill soils consist of approximately 1 to 1.5 feet of variable density (loose to medium dense), gray-brown silty sand.

The existing coastal bluff is considered stable in its current configuration and will not be affected by the new residential remodel that is proposed within the footprint of the existing structure.

II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is known as Assessor’s Parcel No. 263-051-07-00, Lot 1 in Block 1, according to Recorded Map 2143, in the City of Solana Beach, County of San Diego, State of California. The roughly pie-shaped site, consisting of approximately 0.17 acre, is located at 403 Pacific Avenue in the City of Solana Beach (for site location, refer to the Vicinity Map, Figure No. I). The property is bounded on the north and south by similar residential properties at the approximate same elevation as the Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 3
subject property; on the east by Pacific Avenue approximately 6 feet lower in elevation; and on the west by a westerly descending coastal bluff and the Pacific Ocean.

The existing structure on the lot consists of a two-story, single-family residence with attached garage, concrete driveway, and concrete walkways and decks. Access to the lot is provided by a driveway along the northeast corner of the property from Pacific Avenue.

The property consists of a gently sloping building pad at the top of a coastal bluff.

The approximately 80-foot-high bluff descends to the beach and the Pacific Ocean.

The building pad is at approximate elevations of 78 feet above mean sea level (MSL).

Elevations across the property range from approximately 78 feet above MSL at the northwest corner of the property to approximately 72 feet above MSL at the northeast corner of the property. The base of the bluff is at approximately 8 feet above mean sea level MSL. The lower 30 feet of the bluff is protected by a concrete seawall that was constructed approximately 20 years ago.

Information concerning approximate elevations across the site was obtained from topographic information included on the site plan prepared by Terracosta Consulting Group, dated October 19, 2004.

III. FIELD INVESTIGATION
Three exploratory handpits and hand auger borings were placed around the perimeter of the existing residence in the vicinity of the proposed interior remodel and associated improvements. The excavations were placed where access and soil conditions allowed (for exploratory handpit and hand auger boring locations, refer to Figure No. II, Plot Plan and Site Specific Geologic Map). The exploratory excavations Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 4
were advanced to depths ranging from 3 to 5 feet in order to obtain representative soil samples and to define a soil profile across the lot.

The soils encountered in the exploratory excavations were logged by our field representative and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Exploratory excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our observations and laboratory testing. The results have been summarized on Figure Nos. IIIa-c, Excavation Logs. The predominant soils have been classified in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A).

IV. LABORATORY TESTS & SOIL INFORMATION
Laboratory tests were performed on retrieved soil samples in order to evaluate their physical and mechanical properties and their ability to support the proposed residential addition and associated improvements. The test results are presented on the excavation logs, Figure Nos. IIIa-c and IV. The following tests were conducted on representative soil samples:

1. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics (ASTM D1557-12e1)

2. Moisture Content (ASTM D2216-19)

3. Determination of Percentage of Particles Smaller than #200 Sieve (ASTM D1140-17)
Laboratory compaction values (ASTM D1557-12e1) establish the optimum moisture content and the laboratory maximum dry density of the tested soils. The relationship between the moisture and density of remolded soil samples helps to establish soil compaction conditions to be anticipated during any future grading operation. The test results are presented on the logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 5
Moisture content measurements were performed to establish the in-situ moisture of samples retrieved from the exploratory excavations. Moisture contents were performed by ASTM methods D2216. These tests help to establish the in-situ moisture of samples retrieved from the exploratory excavations.

The passing –200 sieve size analysis (ASTM D1140) and particle size analysis (ASTM D422) aid in classification of the tested soils based on their fine material content and provide qualitative information related to engineering characteristics such as expansion potential, permeability, and shear strength.

The expansion potential of soils is determined, when necessary, utilizing the Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of Soils (ASTM D4829). In accordance with the Standard (Table 5.3), potentially expansive soils are classified as follows:

EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0 to 20 Very low
21 to 50 Low
51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
Above 130 Very high
Based on our experience with similar soils, we considered the on-site fill and formational soils to possess a low expansion potential.

Based on the field and laboratory test data, our observations of the primary soil types on the project, and our previous experience with similar soils, our Geotechnical Engineer has assigned values for friction angle, coefficient of friction, and cohesion for those soils which will provide significant lateral support or load bearing functions on the project. These values have been utilized in determining the recommended Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 6
bearing value as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria for foundations and retaining walls.

V. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
San Diego County has been divided into three major geomorphic provinces: The Coastal Plain, the Peninsular Ranges and the Salton Trough. The Coastal Plain exists west of the Peninsular Ranges. The Salton Trough is east of the Peninsular Ranges.

These divisions are the result of the basic geologic distinctions between the areas.

Mesozoic metavolcanic, metasedimentary and plutonic rocks predominate in the Peninsular Ranges with primarily Cenozoic sedimentary rocks to the west and east of this central mountain range (Demere, 1997). For a more detailed regional geologic description, refer to Appendix B.

VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
A. Stratigraphy
Our reconnaissance, field work, and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports indicate that dense, Tertiary-age Torrey sandstone (Tt) formational soils underlie the entire site at depth and are overlain by Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6).

The soil profile at the site includes up to 1.5 feet of surficial fill soils overlying the native soils. Refer to the excavation logs, Figure Nos. IIIa-c. Figure No. V presents a plan view geologic map of the general area of the site.

Fill Soils (Qaf): The lot is overlain by approximately 1 to 1.5 feet of surficial fill soils as encountered in all of the exploratory excavations. The fill soils consist of graybrown, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand. The fill soils are generally damp, of variable density (loose to medium dense), low expansion potential, and are not Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 7
suitable in their current condition for support of new loads from structures or improvements. Refer to Figure Nos. IIIa-c for details.

Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6): Old Paralic deposits were encountered below the fill soils. The Old Paralic Deposits consist of red-brown, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand. They are generally medium dense, damp, and are considered suitable for support of loads from structures or additional fill. The Old Paralic Deposits were also observed in the bluff face below the lot and overlying the Torrey Sandstone (Tt). The thickness of these materials is estimated to be approximately 50 feet thick as encountered in our exploratory boring placed on a lot to the south of the Bates Property. Refer to Figure Nos. IIIa-c for details.

Torrey Sandstone (Tt): Although not encountered in our relatively shallow exploratory excavations, the Torrey Sandstone formational soils were encountered in our exploratory boring placed on a lot to the south of the Bates property at a depth of 50 feet, and exists behind the existing seawall at the base of the bluff face below the property. The formational materials observed in the bluff face below the property consists of well indurated, massively bedded, fine to medium grained sandstone.

They are generally very dense, slightly moist, light yellowish brown and are considered to have good bearing strength characteristics.

B. Structure
The Tertiary-age Torrey Sandstone (Tt) underlies the site. The Torrey Sandstone in this area strikes approximately north 35 degrees west and dips approximately 2 degrees to the northeast as depicted approximately 1 mile south of the property on the geologic map (Kennedy and Tan, 2008; see Figure No. V). No apparent geologic structure was observed in the massively bedded Torrey Sandstone immediately below the subject property. It should be noted that before the installation of the existing Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 8
seawall, sea caves in the lower portion of the bluff had been filled in during a previous bluff stabilization project.

C. Bluff Observations
The bluff along the west side of the subject property extends approximately 80 feet down to the beach below. The exposed bedrock configuration ranges from steeply sloping surfaces in the upper terrace deposits, to sub-vertical to vertical surfaces to approximately 20 feet in height, in the lower Torrey Sandstone. The lower 30 feet of the bluff is protected with a 30-foot-high, vertical concrete seawall. No out of slope dip components were noted that would adversely affect slope stability. Refer to Figure No. VI for the geologic cross section.

Although it appears unlikely that bluff recession due to wave erosion would affect the primary rear yard improvements during their useful economic life (considered 75 years), recession of the bluff into the western landscape area between the bluff edge and the rear yard patio should be expected.

D. Bluff Stability and Recession Mechanisms
As always with proposed coastal bluff top construction, bluff face geologic stability as well as bluff recession mechanisms and rates are significant factors to be considered in site development. Evaluations must be made of inherent strengths of the Torrey Sandstone and Old Paralic deposits (Marine terrace deposits), as well as their highly variable response to coastal erosion processes depending on lithologic variations and degrees of faulting and jointing.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 9
The lower approximately 20 feet of the bluff face below the subject property stood essentially vertical or sub-vertical prior to construction of the seawall, due to the erosion resistant nature of the well indurated Torrey Sandstone. Prior to the construction of the seawall, portions of the lower bluff rim overhung the lower surfaces by 1 to 2 feet. The Old Paralic deposits are above the line of direct wave attack and a different combination of factors influence their erosion. Upper portions of coastal bluffs are exposed to precipitation, wind, pedestrian erosion, variations in landscape, landscape maintenance, and other activities.

Coastal bluff retreat is a naturally occurring process that is affected by man’s action.

Severe erosion is episodic in nature and is mostly dependent upon the intensity of storms and combined high tides, and it is possible that several feet of retreat could occur during severe weather conditions. There may also be periods during the future when erosion along the coast will be insignificant.

We have evaluated the 75-year erosion rate based on current information for historical erosion rates in this area of Solana Beach. This included reviews of historical aerial photographs, physical surveys, and photogrammetry. This method conforms to the guidelines for establishing long-term retreat rates provided in Johnsson (2005), which states “…historic data currently are our best indicators of future erosion at any given site.”
Based on information included in a report prepared for this property by Geosoils, Inc., dated December 4, 2023 (refer to Appendix C of this report), they have evaluated the 75-year erosion rate to include sea level rise (SLR). Review of the 2012 National Research Council (NRC) report indicates the CCC SLR estimate over the project 75- year design life to the year 2098 is between 2.5 feet and 5.8 feet. This is the estimated sea level rise range for the proposed project. ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 10
As stated in the Geosoils, Inc. report, “with the seawall in place the bluff retreat rate will be approximately 0 ft/yr. The site historical bluff top retreat rate is reasonably estimated to be 0.1 ft/yr. In the absence of the seawall the potential retreat rate will transition from the current rate to the future rate. The retreat rate from 1932 to 2023 is estimated to be 0.1 ft/yr. The retreat rate in the year 2100 with 5.8 feet SLR may be as much as 0.3 ft/yr. The expected retreat rate for the next 20 to 25 years will be the historical retreat rate of 0.1 ft/yr primarily because there is little expected SLR in the next 20 to 25 years. The maximum likely SLR from the CCC guidance for the year 2047 is about 1.7 feet and the minimum is about 2 feet. These estimates represent a small change in the 10-foot tidal range, 20% or less. As such, the impact of SLR on bluff retreat rate at year 25 will be less than 20% of the current retreat rate.”
This analysis uses site-specific calculated historical bluff retreat, justified and probable SLR over the next 75 years, and scientifically reviewed methodology to calculate the potential annualized retreat rate including SLR over the project life.

VII. PRELIMINARY BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSES
Slope stability analysis was performed along a cross section through the property and coastal bluff (refer to Figure No. VI for Geologic Cross Section). Because the site is underlain at depth by dense formational Torrey Sandstone (Tt) materials and medium dense Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6), and the existing coastal bluff below the property does not appear to have failed, it is our opinion that sufficient gross stability exists in the existing building pad area.

As part of geotechnical investigation, we reviewed a geotechnical report from a nearby project on Pacific Avenue where we collected similar soil samples of the coastal bluff materials (i.e., the Old Paralic Deposits and Torrey Sandstone) that exist Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 11
at the site. We used the soil classification and standard penetration blow counts to assign shear strength values to the soils. We assigned values of shear strength for the Old Paralic Deposits soils and the underlying Torrey Sandstone (34 degrees and 550 psf for the Old Paralic Deposits, and 35 degrees and 800 psf for the Torrey Sandstone formational materials).

Slope stability analysis was performed utilizing a computer program, SLIDE, which analyzes the factor of safety against shear stresses (refer to Appendix E for Slope Stability Analysis). Potential shear failure surfaces were analyzed with the assigned soil shear strength values. Shear failure analyses were run along the aforementioned cross section. All analyzed slide surfaces yielded a factor of safety of at least 1.5.

The minimum acceptable factor of safety against soil shear deep failure is 1.5. Based on our test results, the coastal bluff at the site is considered stable against deepseated failures.

VIII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The following is a discussion of the geologic conditions and hazards common to this area of the City of Solana Beach, as well as project-specific geologic information relating to development of the subject property.

A. Local and Regional Faults
The primary seismic considerations for improvements at the subject site are surface rupture of fault traces, damage caused by ground shaking during a seismic event, and seismically-induced ground settlement. The potential for any or all of these hazards depends upon the recency of fault activity and the proximity of nearby faults to the subject site. Our review of the proper literature (CGS, 2021a) indicates that the subject site lies outside the present Earthquake Fault Zones, described in the Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 12
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act as being placed along active faults. The major active faults nearest to the site are all part of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone. The following local and regional fault zones are mapped in southern California in general proximity to the site:
 Rose Canyon Fault Zone: The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is mapped approximately

2.9 miles southwest of the site and is estimated to be capable of generating a M6.9 earthquake (EERI, 2021).
 Newport-Inglewood Fault: Mapped approximately 14 miles northwest of the site, estimated to be capable of producing a M6.0 to M7.4 earthquake (Grant Ludwig and Shearer, 2004; SCEDC, 2022).
 Coronado Bank Fault Zone: Mapped approximately 16 miles southwest of the site and estimated to be capable of a M7.6 earthquake.
 Elsinore Fault Zone: The Julian and Temecula sections of the Elsinore Fault Zone are mapped approximately 30 miles east-northeast of the site and are estimated to be capable of a of a M6.5 to M7.5 earthquake (SCEDC, 2022).  San Jacinto Fault Zone: Mapped approximately 53 miles northeast of the site.

This fault is estimated to be capable of a M6.5 to M7.5 (SCEDC, 2022).

The potential for strong ground shaking from earthquakes on active southern California faults and active faults in northwestern Mexico should be anticipated at the site. Design of building structures in accordance with the current building codes would reduce the potential for injury or loss of human life. Buildings constructed in accordance with current building codes may suffer significant damage but should not undergo total collapse.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 13
B. Other Geologic Hazards
Ground Rupture: Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established fault and may result in displacement of the ground surface. For ground rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds M5.0. If a M5.0 earthquake were to take place on a local fault, an estimated surface-rupture length 1 mile long could be expected (Greensfelder, 1974). Our investigation indicates that the subject site is not directly on a known fault trace and, therefore, the risk of ground rupture is remote.

Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically induced ground shaking is a detrimental effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego County. The intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake, and the seismic response characteristics of underlying soils and geologic units. Earthquakes of M5.0 or greater are generally associated with notable to significant damage. It is our opinion that the most serious damage to the site would be caused by a large earthquake originating on a nearby strand of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Although the chance of such an event is remote, it could occur within the useful life of the structure.

Landslides: Based upon our geologic reconnaissance, review of the geologic map (Kennedy and Tan, 2008), review of the aerial photographs (5-2-53, AXN-8M-80 and 81), there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site.

Liquefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can be a major cause of damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process by which soils are transformed into a viscous fluid that will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 14
primarily in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are sufficiently shaken by an earthquake.

On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation materials due to seismic shaking is considered to be low due to the medium dense to dense nature of the natural-ground material and the lack of a shallow static groundwater surface under the site. The site does not have a potential for soil strength loss to occur due to a seismic event.

Tsunami: Based upon our review of the “Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning,” Del Mar Quadrangle, prepared by the California Geologic Survey, dated June 1, 2009, the site is not mapped within the tsunami inundation line. The risk of a tsunami affecting the site is considered low to moderate as the site is situated at an elevation of approximately 88 feet above mean sea level and adjacent to an exposed beach. In general, the orientation of the southern California coastline and the bathymetry of the offshore southern California borderland have, during historical times, combined to protect the shoreline from any large magnitude tsunami height increases, as shown by records of tsunami occurrences that have been observed and/or recorded along the southern California shoreline since 1810 (Lander et al., 1993). For this segment of the California coastline (south of Santa Monica), there is no evidence of any high magnitude tsunamis generated during the last 200 years by large-scale regional sea floor movements (Gayman, 1998).

C. Geologic Hazards Summary
It is our opinion, based upon a review of the available maps and our site investigation, that the site is underlain by stable formational materials, and is suited for the proposed residential remodel and associated interior improvements. It is our opinion that a known "active" fault presents the greatest seismic risk to the subject site during the lifetime of the proposed residence and additions. To date, the nearest Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 15
known "active" faults to the subject site are the northwest-trending Rose Canyon Fault, Newport-Inglewood, Coronado Bank Fault and the Elsinore Fault. No significant geologic hazards are known to exist on the site that would prevent the proposed construction.

IX. GROUNDWATER
No groundwater was encountered during the course of our field investigation and we do not anticipate significant groundwater problems to develop in the future, if the property is developed as proposed and proper drainage is implemented and maintained.

It should be kept in mind that any required grading operations will change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be localized and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented, as recommended in this report, during and at the completion of construction.

On properties such as the subject site where formational materials exist at relatively shallow depths, even normal landscape irrigation practices or periods of extended rainfall can result in shallow “perched” water conditions. The perching (shallow depth) accumulation of water on a low permeability surface can result in areas of persistent wetting and drowning of lawns, plants and trees. Resolution of such conditions, should they occur, may require site-specific design and construction of subdrain and shallow “wick” drain dewatering systems.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 16
Subsurface drainage with a properly designed and constructed subdrain system will be required along with continuous back drainage behind any proposed lower-level basement walls, property line retaining walls, or any perimeter stem walls for raisedwood floors where the outside grades are higher than the crawl space grades.

Furthermore, crawl spaces should be provided with the proper cross-ventilation to help reduce the potential for moisture-related problems.

It must be understood that unless discovered during initial site exploration or encountered during site grading operations, it is extremely difficult to predict if or where perched or true groundwater conditions may appear in the future. When site fill or formational soils are fine-grained and of low permeability, water problems may not become apparent for extended periods of time.

Water conditions, where suspected or encountered during grading operations, should be evaluated and remedied by the project civil and geotechnical consultants. The project developer and property owner, however, must realize that post-construction appearances of groundwater may have to be dealt with on a site-specific basis.

X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the practical field investigation conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with soil conditions in the City of Solana Beach.

Our geotechnical investigation revealed that the property is underlain at shallow depth by medium dense silty sand materials identified as Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6) overlain by approximately 1 to 1.5 feet of variable density, silty sand fill soils. In their present condition, these fill soils will not provide a stable base for any proposed improvements. As such, we recommend that these soils be removed and Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 17
recompacted as part of site preparation prior to the addition of any new exterior improvements. The native materials have good bearing strength characteristics and are suitable for support of the proposed structural loads.

All foundations should be founded either entirely into the underlying medium dense native materials or entirely in properly compacted fill soils. In proposed exterior improvement areas, all existing fill soils will require removal, moisture conditioning, and recompaction prior to placement of new fill or improvements.

The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. being retained to review the final plans and specifications as they are developed and to observe the site earthwork and installation of foundations.

Accordingly, we recommend that the following paragraph be included on the foundation and/or improvement plans for the project:

If the geotechnical consultant of record is changed for the project, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed in writing to accept the responsibility within their area of technical competence for approval upon completion of the work. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to notify the governing agency in writing of such change prior to the commencement or recommencement of grading and/or foundation installation work.

A. Seismic Design Criteria

1. Seismic Design Criteria: Site-specific seismic design criteria for the proposed residence are presented in the following table in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2022 CBC, which incorporates by reference ASCE 7-16 for seismic design. We have determined the mapped spectral acceleration values for the Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 18
site, based on a latitude of 32.9968 degrees and longitude of -117.2757 degrees, utilizing a third-party GUI tool provided by the USGS, which provides a solution for ASCE 7-16 (Section 1613 of the 2022 CBC) utilizing digitized files for the Spectral Acceleration maps. Based on our experience with similar soil conditions, we have assigned a Soil Site Classification of D-Stiff Soil.

TABLE I
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values and Design Parameters Ss S1 Fa Fv Sms Sm1 Sds Sd1

1.24g 0.44g 1.004 1.86 1.245g 0.818g 0.83g 0.545g
B. Preparation of Soils for Site Development

2. Clearing and Stripping: The existing improvements and vegetation observed within the proposed addition areas should be removed prior to the preparation of the building pad and areas of associated improvements. This includes any roots from existing trees and shrubbery. Holes resulting from the removal of root systems or other buried foundations, debris or obstructions that extend below the planned grades should be cleared and backfilled with properly compacted fill.

3. Treatment of Existing Fill Soils and/or Loose Surficial Soils: In order to provide suitable foundation support for the proposed additions and associated improvements, we recommend that all existing fill soils that remain after the necessary demolition and site excavations have been made be removed and recompacted. The recompaction work should consist of (a) removing these soils down to native medium dense materials; (b) scarifying, moisture conditioning, and compacting the exposed natural subgrade soils; and (c) cleaning and replacing the removed material as compacted structural fill.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 19
Before any soils are processed our field representative should evaluate the soils at the bottom of the excavation.

The depth required to remove the fill soils is anticipated to be approximately 1 to 2 feet within the proposed addition areas, but should be confirmed by our representatives during the excavation work based on their examination of the soils being exposed. The lateral extent of the excavation and recompaction should be at least 5 feet beyond the edge of the perimeter foundations of the residential structure and any areas to receive exterior improvements where feasible.

Any unsuitable materials (such as oversize rubble, highly expansive clayey soils, and/or organic matter) should be selectively removed as indicated by our representative and disposed of off-site or be properly moisture conditioned and compacted.

Any rigid improvements founded on the existing variable density surface soils can be expected to undergo movement and possible damage. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. takes no responsibility for the performance of any improvements built on loose natural soils or inadequately compacted fills. Any exterior area to receive concrete improvements should be verified for compaction and moisture within 48 hours prior to concrete placement or during the fill placement if the thickness of fill exceeds 1 foot. The bottom of excavation in areas to have fill soils recompacted shall be evaluated by our representative prior to fill/backfill placement.

4. Subgrade Preparation: After the site has been cleared, stripped, and the required excavations made, the exposed subgrade soils in areas to receive fill and/or building improvements should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 20
moisture conditioned, and compacted to the requirements for structural fill.

Moisture content should be maintained by periodical sprinkling until within 48 hours prior to concrete placement.

5. Expansive Soil Conditions: We do not anticipate that significant quantities of medium or highly expansive clay soils will be encountered during grading.

Should such soils be encountered and used as fill, however, they should be moisture conditioned to at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content, compacted to 88 to 92 percent, and placed outside building areas. Soils of medium or greater expansion potential should not be used as retaining wall backfill soils.

6. Material for Fill: Existing on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are, in general, suitable for use as fill. Any required imported fill material should be a low-expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less per ASTM D4829-11). In addition, both imported and existing onsite materials for use as fill should not contain rocks or lumps more than 3 inches in greatest dimension. All materials for use as fill should be approved by our representative prior to importing to the site.

7. Fill Compaction: All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent based upon ASTM D1557-12. Fill material should be spread and compacted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fill should be brought to a moisture content that will permit proper compaction by either: (1) aerating and drying the fill if it is too wet, or (2) moistening the fill with water if it is too dry. Each lift should be thoroughly mixed before compaction to ensure a uniform distribution of moisture.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 21
No uncontrolled fill soils should remain after completion of the site work. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils, the loose fill soils should be removed and/or recompacted prior to completion of the grading operation.

8. Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill: Utility trenches and retaining walls should preferably be backfilled with compacted fill; gravel is also a suitable backfill material but should be used only if space constraints will not allow the use of compaction equipment. Gravel can also be used as backfill around perforated subdrains. Backfill material should be placed in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent by mechanical means.

Our experience has shown that even shallow, narrow trenches (such as for irrigation and electrical lines) that are not properly compacted can result in problems, particularly with respect to shallow groundwater accumulation and migration.

Backfill soils placed behind retaining walls should be installed as early as the retaining walls are capable of supporting lateral loads. Backfill soils behind retaining walls should be low expansive, with an Expansion Index equal to or lower than 50.

C. Design Parameters for Proposed Foundations

9. Footings: We recommend that any new structural loads within the current building footprint be supported on conventional, individual-spread and/or continuous footing foundations bearing on properly compacted fill soils prepared as stated above and/or undisturbed natural material. All new Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 22
footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. The existing perimeter footings were found to have a depth of 24 inches and a width of 14 inches. If existing foundations are to support new structural loads, they should be reviewed by the structural engineer to transmit to the soil no more than 2,000 psf. Otherwise, the existing footings should be widened to the necessary bearing area dimensions.

If footings are located closer than 8 feet inside the top or face of slopes, they should be deepened to 1½ feet below a line beginning at a point 8 feet horizontally inside the slopes and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the slope and into firm soils. Bearing surfaces of footings located adjacent to utility trenches should be situated below an imaginary 1.5:1.0 plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench.

10. Bearing Values: At the recommended depths, the existing footings on compacted fill or native soil may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and live loads and 3,300 psf for all loads, including wind or seismic. The footings should, however, have a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches for one-story structures (minimum width of 15 inches for two-story structures). Footing excavations should be evaluated by our representative prior to steel and form placement. If suspended floors are to be used between deepened footings into dense formational soils, our firm can be contacted for additional recommendations.

11. Footing Reinforcement: All continuous footings should contain top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. We recommend that a minimum of two No. 5 top and two No. 5 bottom reinforcing bars be provided in the footings. A minimum clearance Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 23
of 3 inches should be maintained between steel reinforcement and the bottom or sides of the footing. Isolated square footings should contain, as a minimum, a grid of three No. 4 steel bars on 12-inch centers, both ways. In order for us to offer an opinion as to whether the footings are founded on soils of sufficient load bearing capacity, it is essential that our representative inspect the footing excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.

NOTE: The project Civil/Structural Engineer should review all reinforcing schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum reinforcement to reduce the potential for cracking and separations.

12. Lateral Loads: Lateral load resistance for the structures supported on footing foundations may be developed in friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 is considered applicable. An additional allowable passive resistance equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 260 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the foundations may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat against the adjacent undisturbed formational materials and/or properly compacted fill materials. These lateral resistance values assume a level surface in front of the footing for a minimum distance of three times the embedment depth of the footing or at least 8 ft to daylight, whichever is larger. Existing footings to support new loads should be reviewed to see that they don’t transfer a lateral load to the soil over 150 pcf as passive resistance into the existing fills.

13. Settlement: Settlements under building loads are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed residence. For footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding paragraphs, we Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 24
anticipate that total settlements should not exceed 1 inch and that postconstruction differential angular rotation should be less than 1/240.

D. Concrete Slab-on-grade Criteria

14. Minimum Floor Slab Reinforcement: Based on our experience, we have found that, for various reasons, floor slabs occasionally crack, causing brittle surfaces such as ceramic tiles to become damaged. Therefore, we recommend that all slabs-on-grade contain at least a minimum amount of reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur.

14.1 Interior new slabs-on-grade on properly compacted soils should be a minimum of 4 inches actual thickness and be reinforced with No. 3 bars on 15-inch centers, both ways, placed at midheight in the slab. The slabs should be underlain by a moisture retardant membrane (i.e., 15- mil StegoWrap) over a 4-inch-thick capillary break layer consisting of clean ⅜-inch gravel. Slab subgrade soil should be verified by a Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. representative to have the proper moisture content within 48 hours prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring of concrete. The StegoWrap membrane may be placed directly on properly compacted subgrade soils or dense formational soils.

14.2 Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of any floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 25

15. Concrete Isolation Joints: We recommend the project Civil/Structural Engineer incorporate isolation joints and sawcuts to at least one-fourth the thickness of the slab in any floor designs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for and help control floor slab cracking. We recommend that concrete shrinkage joints be spaced no farther than approximately 20 feet apart, and also at re-entrant corners. However, due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete), some cracking of slabs can be expected.

16. Slab Moisture Emission: Although it is not the responsibility of geotechnical engineering firms to provide moisture protection recommendations, as a service to our clients we provide the following discussion and suggested minimum protection criteria. Actual recommendations should be provided by the architect and waterproofing consultants. Soil moisture vapor can result in damage to moisture-sensitive floors, some floor sealers, or sensitive equipment in direct contact with the floor, in addition to mold and staining on slabs, walls, and carpets.

The common practice in Southern California is to place vapor retarders made of PVC, or of polyethylene. PVC retarders are made in thickness ranging from 10- to 60-mil. Polyethylene retarders, called visqueen, range from 5- to 10- mil in thickness. These products are no longer considered adequate for moisture protection and can actually deteriorate over time.

Specialty vapor retarding products possess higher tensile strength and are more specifically designed for and intended to retard moisture transmission into and through concrete slabs. The use of such products is highly recommended for reduction of floor slab moisture emission.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 26
The following American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) sections address the issue of moisture transmission into and through concrete slabs: ASTM E1745-97 (2009) Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact Concrete Slabs; ASTM E154-88 (2005) Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth; ASTM E96-95 Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials; ASTM E1643-98 (2009) Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact Under Concrete Slabs; and ACI 302.2R-06 Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials.

Based on the above, we recommend that the vapor barrier consist of a minimum 15-mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditioning (ASTM E1745 Section 7.1 and sub-paragraphs 7.1.1-7.1.5) should be less than 0.01 perms (grains/square foot/hour in Hg) and comply with the ASTM E1745 Class A requirements. Installation of vapor barriers should be in accordance with ASTM E1643. The basis of design is StegoWrap vapor barrier 15-mil or equivalent placed as previously indicated.

16.1 Common to all acceptable products, vapor retarder/barrier joints must be lapped and sealed with mastic or the manufacturer’s recommended tape or sealing products. In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarder’s effectiveness. In no case should retarder/barrier products be punctured or gaps be allowed to form prior to or during concrete placement.
ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 27

16.2 Vapor retarders/barriers do not provide full waterproofing for structures constructed below free water surfaces. They are intended to help reduce or prevent vapor transmission and/or capillary migration through the soil and through the concrete slabs. Waterproofing systems must be designed and properly constructed if full waterproofing is desired. The owner and project designers should be consulted to determine the specific level of protection required.

16.3 Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials.

17. Exterior Slab Reinforcement: As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, we recommend that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks, etc.) be at least 4 inches in actual thickness, founded on properly compacted and tested fill or dense native formation and underlain by no more than 3 inches of clean leveling sand, with No. 3 bars at 18-inch centers, both ways, at the center of the slab, and contain adequate isolation and control joints. The performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction. It is therefore important that all improvements are properly designed and constructed for the existing soil conditions. The improvements should not be built on loose soils or fills placed without our observation and testing. The subgrade of exterior improvements should be verified as properly prepared within 48 hours prior to concrete placement. A minimum thickness of 2 feet of properly recompacted soils should underlie the exterior slabs on-grade.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 28
For exterior slabs with the minimum shrinkage reinforcement, control joints should be placed at spaces no farther than 15 feet apart or the width of the slab, whichever is less, and also at re-entrant corners. Control and isolation joints in exterior slabs should be sealed with elastomeric joint sealant. The sealant should be inspected every 6 months and be properly maintained.

E. Site Drainage Considerations

18. Erosion Control: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken at all times during and after construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad areas or causing erosion on soil surface.

19. Surface Drainage: Adequate measures should be taken to properly finishgrade the lot after the remodel and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties should be directed away from the footings, floor slabs, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities provided by the project civil engineer. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the residence, with the runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the footings and floor slabs.

Failure to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and possible differential settlement of the structure or other improvements or cause other moisture-related problems. Currently, the CBC requires a minimum one-percent surface gradient for proper drainage of building pads Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 29
unless waived by the building official. Concrete pavement may have a minimum gradient of 0.5-percent.

20. Planter Drainage: Planter areas, flower beds and planter boxes should be sloped to drain away from the footings and floor slabs at a gradient of at least 5 percent within 5 feet from the perimeter walls. Any planter areas adjacent to the residence or surrounded by concrete improvements should be provided with sufficient area drains to help with rapid runoff disposal. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to the residence or other improvements or anywhere on the site.

F. General Recommendations

21. Project Start Up Notification: In order to reduce any work delays during site development, this firm should be contacted at least 48 hours and preferably 48 hours prior to any need for observation of footing excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observing the excavations; in the event that our observations reveal the need for deepening or redesigning foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the excavation, etc.).

22. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs): Construction BMPs must be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the controlling jurisdiction. Sufficient BMPs must be installed to prevent silt, mud or other construction debris from being tracked into the adjacent street(s) or storm water conveyance systems due to construction vehicles or any other Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 30
construction activity. The contractor is responsible for cleaning any such debris that may be in the street at the end of each work day or after a storm event that causes breach in the installed construction BMPs.

All stockpiles of uncompacted soil and/or building materials that are intended to be left unprotected for a period greater than 7 days are to be provided with erosion and sediment controls. Such soil must be protected each day when the probability of rain is 40% or greater. A concrete washout should be provided on all projects that propose the construction of any concrete improvements that are to be poured in place. All erosion/sediment control devices should be maintained in working order at all times. All slopes that are created or disturbed by construction activity must be protected against erosion and sediment transport at all times. The storage of all construction materials and equipment must be protected against any potential release of pollutants into the environment.

XI. GRADING NOTES
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be retained to verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavation to be as anticipated in this "Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Coastal Bluff Edge Evaluation" for the project. In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be observed and tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the local grading ordinance. All retaining wall and trench backfill should be properly compacted. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage occurring due to improperly or uncompacted backfill placed without our observations and testing.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 31
XII. LIMITATIONS
Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with similar soils and formational materials located in this area of Solana Beach. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures.

It is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required.

The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis that meet the contemporary standard of care in our profession within the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided.

As stated previously, it is not within the scope of our services to provide quality control oversight for surface or subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall sealing and base of wall drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify proper wall sealing, geofabric installation, protection board installation (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surfaces; pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc.

This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building plans, especially with respect to the height and location of any proposed structures, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision.

Ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 32
It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations and that our recommendations for design of this project are incorporated in the structural plans. We should be retained to review the project plans once they are available to verify that our recommendations have been adequately incorporated into them.

This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions presented herein are considered to be unsafe.

The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report and the changes are made without our observations, testing, and approval. ii
Bates Residence Remodel Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 33
Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Reference to our Job No. 23-14438 will expedite a reply to your inquiries.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
_______________________________ ______________________________ Jay K. Heiser Jaime A. Cerros, P.E.

Senior Project Geologist R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
_______________________________
Leslie D. Reed, President
C.E.G. 999/P.G. 3391
NICAL EXPLORATI1
Ii

REFERENCES
JOB NO. 23-14438
January 2024
Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, p. 44.

Barnard, P.L., M. van Ormondt, L.H., Erikson, J. Eshleman, C. Hapke, P. Ruggiero, P.N. Adams, and A.

Foxgrover, 2014, Coastal Storm Modeling System: CoSMoS, Southern California 1.0, Projected Flooding Hazards, https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/coastal_processes/cosmos/socal1.0/, doi: 10.5066/F74B2ZB4.

Benumof, B.T., and G.B., Griggs, 1999, The Dependence of Seacliff Erosion Rates on Material Properties and Physical Processes: San Diego County, California in Shore & Beach, Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp.29-41.

Berger & Schug, 1991, Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Hazard in the San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Region, Environmental Perils, San Diego Region, San Diego Association of Geologists.

Bryant, W.A. and E.W. Hart, 1973 (10th Revision 1997), Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif.

Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.

California Coastal Commission, 2015, Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, Interpretative Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Costal Programs and Coastal Development Permits.

California Division of Mines and Geology – Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Map, November 1, 1991.

Crowell, J.C., 1962, Displacement along the San Andreas Fault, California; Geologic Society of America Special Paper 71, 61 p.

Demere, T.A., 2003, Geology of San Diego County, California, BRCC San Diego Natural History Museum.

Greene, H.G., 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderland between San Pedro and San Diego, in “Earthquakes and Other Perils, San Diego Region,” P.L. Abbott and W.J.

Elliott, editors.

Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.

Hart, E.W., D.P. Smith, and R.B. Saul, 1979, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area (Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough Region), Calif. Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-10 SF, 10.

Hart E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif. Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999.

Hauksson, E. and L. Jones, 1988, The July 1988 Oceanside (ML=5.3) Earthquake Sequence in the Continental Borderland, Southern California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 78, p. 1885-1906.

Hileman, J.A., C.R. Allen and J.M. Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972; Seismological Laboratory, Cal-Tech, Pasadena, Calif.

Johnsson, M.J., 2005, Establishing Development Setbacks from Coastal Bluffs, in California and the World Ocean, pp.396-416.

Ii
REFERENCES/Page 2
Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California; Bulletin 200, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology.

Kennedy, M.P., S.H. Clarke, H.G. Greene, R.C. Jachens, V.E. Langenheim, J.J. Moore and D.M. Burns, 1994, A digital (GIS) Geological/Geophysical/Seismological Data Base for the San Diego 30’x60’ Quadrangle, California—A New Generation, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, p. 63.

Kennedy, M.P., S.S. Tan, R.H. Chapman, and G.W. Chase, 1975; Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Special Report 123, Calif. Division of Mines and Geology.

Kennedy, M.P. and E.E. Welday, 1980, Character and Recency of Faulting Offshore, metropolitan San Diego California, Calif. Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 40, 1:50,000.

Kern, J.P. and T.K. Rockwell, 1992, Chronology and Deformation of Quaternary Marine Shorelines, San Diego County, California in Heath, E. and L. Lewis (editors), The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Coastal Southern California, pp. 1-8.

Kern, P., 1983, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego, Pickle Press, San Diego, California.

McEuen, R.B. and C.J. Pinckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in San Diego; Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History, v. 17, No. 4.

Richter, C.G., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif.

Rockwell, T.K., D.E. Millman, R.S. McElwain, and D.L. Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California: Lamar-Merifield Technical Report 85-1, U.S.G.S. Contract 14-08-0001-21376, 19 p.

Simons, R.S., 1977, Seismicity of San Diego, 1934-1974, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, p. 809-826.

Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in Southern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Calif. Division of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 95-03.

Toppozada, T.R. and D.L. Parke, 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900-1949; Calif.

Div. Of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 82-17, Sacramento, Calif.

Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, Calif. Div. Of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 93-02, 45 pp, 3 plates.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1953, Aerial Photographs AXN-8M-80 and 81.

Greene, H.G., Bailey, K.A., Clarke, S.H., Ziony, J.I. and Kennedy, M.P., 1979, Implications of fault patterns of the inner California continental borderland between San Pedro and San Diego, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliot, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and other perils, San Diego region: San Diego Association of Geologists, Geological Society of America field trip, p. 21–28.

Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.

Hart, E.W., D.P. Smith, and R.B. Saul, 1979, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area (Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough Region), Calif. Div. Of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-10 SF, 10.

Ii
REFERENCES/Page 3
Hart E.W. and W. A. Bryant, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif. Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999.

Hauksson, E. and L. Jones, 1988, The July 1988 Oceanside (ML=5.3) Earthquake Sequence in the Continental Borderland, Southern California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 78, p. 1885-1906.

Hileman, J.A., C.R. Allen and J.M. Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972; Seismological Laboratory, Cal-Tech, Pasadena, Calif.

Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 2001, Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, California Geology.

Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2008, Geologic Map of the San Diego 30’x60’ Quadrangle, California.

California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 3 Scale: 1:100,000.

Kern, J.P. and T.K. Rockwell, 1992, Chronology and Deformation of Quaternary Marine Shorelines, San Diego County, California in Heath, E. and L. Lewis (editors), The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Coastal Southern California, pp. 1-8.

Rockwell, T.K., D.E. Millman, R.S. McElwain, and D.L. Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California: Lamar-Merifield Technical Report 85-1, U.S.G.S. Contract 14-08-0001-21376, 19 p.

Simons, R.S., 1977, Seismicity of San Diego, 1934-1974, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, p. 809-826.

Ross, Z.E., Hauksson E. and Ben-Zion Y., 2017, Abundant Off-fault Seismicity and Orthogonal Structures in the San Jacinto Fault Zone, Science Advances, 2017; 3(3): e1601946.

Singleton, D.M., Rockwell, T.K., Murbach, D., Murbach, M., Maloney, J., Freeman, T., Levy, Y., 2019, Late-Holocene Rupture History of the Rose Canyon Fault in Old Town, San Diego: Implications of Cascading Earthquakes on the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault System, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 109, p. 855-874.

Southern California Earthquake Data Center, 2022, Earthquake information, Fault Name Index, https://scedc.caltech.edu/earthquake/faults.html.

Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in Southern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Calif. Div. Of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 95-03.

Toppozada, T.R. and D.L. Parke, 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900-1949; Calif.

Div. Of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 82-17, Sacramento, Calif.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1953, Aerial Photographs AXN-8M-1 and 2.

Ii
SITE
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA.

Figure No. I
Job No. 23-14438
Thomas Bros. Guide San Diego County pg 1167-E6

VICINITY MAP

PACIFIC
OCEAN

SAN ELIJO LAGC
~ PLAZAW~
~ ~ ---\. 'f: p.ooO v,
Santa Fe Christian~ CommunityHs
nta Fe Christi,,n ~ @ Community Es \!!I>-
1ff /s~~ ~1 / s~I
c,,'i).

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.

Bates Residence
HP-3 Approximate Location
of Exploratory Handpit
HP-1
HP-2
HP-3
January 2024
23-14438-P2.ai
LEGEND

PLOT PLAN ANDSITE SPECIFICGEOLOGIC MAP
REFERENCE: This Plot Plan was prepared from a MAIN LEVELPLAN by REYES STUDIO dated 08/07/2023 and from on-site field reconnaissance performed by GEI.

REFERENCE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legalpurposes. Locations and dimensions are approximate.Actual property dimensions and locations of utilitiesmay be obtained from the Approved Building Plansor the “As-Built” Grading Plans.

PACIFIC AVENUE
N
Bates Residence403 Pacific AvenueSolana Beach, CA.Figure No. IIJob No. 23-14438

GRAPHIC SCALE
( 1” = 30’ )
30 0 15 30 45
Top of Bluff 25 Foot Setback 40 Foot Setback GSL Setback (approx.) Artificial Fill

GEOLOGIC LEGEND
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6
Qaf
Qop6
Qaf
Qop
6 Qaf
Qop6
®
±
t
,----
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
D
------
:

I
I
eff I Bil_
= :::J
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \.. __ _
--
....... _ --
--
m
Ill
--....._--....._
-----
-----
........
--
-------
--
------
......... __
---------- A£: -----------------------7
I~
~ hX6POST
-----....._
-------
------
--
--
----------
------...._ __
---
---- J --
A
D
~f!.4~- Geotechnical
~1,--,.il Exploration, Inc.
1 SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some roots. Loose to medium dense. Damp.

Gray-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained; poorly
cemented. Medium dense. Damp. Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
-- 15% passing #200 sieve.

Footing : 24" deep, 14" wide.
-- 23% passing #200 sieve.

Bottom @ 5'

98.2 120.49.6

5.1 7.4
SM
SM
DEPTH (feet)

FIGURE NUMBER
23-14438

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
1 2
3 4
5 6

JOB NUMBER SAMPLE
HP-1

DATE LOGGED
Not Encountered
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bates Residence SYMBOL BLOW COUNTS/FT.

REVIEWED BY
± 78' Mean Sea Level JKH
IIIa
1 SITE LOCATION

JOB NAME
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

LDR/JAC

SURFACE ELEVATION LOGGED BY
3' X 3' X 5' Handpit

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools
EXPLORATION LOG 14438 BATES.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 12/11/23
(%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
1 SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some gravel. Loose to medium dense. Damp.

Gray-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained;
moderately cemented. Medium dense. Damp.

Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
Footing : 24" deep.
-- 19% passing #200 sieve.

Bottom @ 3'

7.0 SM
SM
DEPTH (feet)

FIGURE NUMBER
23-14438

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
1 2
3 4

JOB NUMBER SAMPLE
HP-2

DATE LOGGED
Not Encountered
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bates Residence SYMBOL BLOW COUNTS/FT.

REVIEWED BY
± 75' Mean Sea Level JKH
IIIb
1 SITE LOCATION

JOB NAME
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

LDR/JAC

SURFACE ELEVATION LOGGED BY
3' X 3' X 3' Handpit

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools
EXPLORATION LOG 14438 BATES.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 12/11/23
(%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
~ L_ ______________________ __, f'-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
1 SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some roots. Loose to medium dense. Damp.

Gray-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained;
moderately cemented. Medium dense. Damp.

Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
-- 15% passing #200 sieve.

Bottom @ 4'

9.2 SM
SM
DEPTH (feet)

FIGURE NUMBER
23-14438

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NUMBER SAMPLE
HP-3

DATE LOGGED
Not Encountered
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bates Residence SYMBOL BLOW COUNTS/FT.

REVIEWED BY
± 75' Mean Sea Level JKH
IIIc
1 SITE LOCATION

JOB NAME
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

LDR/JAC

SURFACE ELEVATION LOGGED BY
3' X 3' X 4' Handpit

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools
EXPLORATION LOG 14438 BATES.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 12/11/23
(%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
- lo -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
WATER CONTENT, %

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Water Content 9.6
Source of Material
Description of Material
DRY DENSITY, pcf
SILTY SAND (SM), Red-brown
ASTM D1557 Method A
HP-1 @ 1.5'
120.4 PCF
%
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:

2.80 2.70

2.60 Test Method
Expansion Index (EI)
Figure Number: IV
Job Name: Bates Residence
Site Location: 403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
Job Number: 23-14438 COMPACTION + EI DARK GRID 14438 BATES.GPJ GEI FEB06.GDT 12/11/23 I\ ' \ \
\ \
\ ' \
\ \ \ \ 1
\ \
\ ' I\ '
\ \ \ 1
\ \
I\ ' I\ '
,. ·'-' \ \
I\ \
\ \ \
I\ \
\ \ \ \ '
\ \
\ '
\ \
\ '
\ \ I\ \ '
\ I\
I\ \
\ I\ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ '\
\ \ '
\ I'\ I\
\ \
\ ' \ '
\ I\
'\ \ lo.
\ '\
\ I\
\ \ \.
\ I\ '
\ \ \
" ' \ '\ I\.
'\ \
' ' I\ '-
'\ I'\ 1"-
\
I"' ' ' I'\..
"' '\ '\ ..
"' " ""
I'\. I"' .......
'\ " .......
1"- "' I\..
" '\ .... ,
' "' " " "
-~~-..

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
'~~~ ~
SITE

PACIFIC
OCEAN
Figure No. V Job No. 23-14438
BATES-GEO-OC.ai
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach CA.

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS
SITE

EXCERPT FROM
Qop Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 6
January 2024

ONSHORE MAP SYMBOLS
Contact - Contact between geologic units; dotted where concealed.

Fault - Solid where accurately located; dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. U = upthrown block, D = downthrown block. Arrow and number indicate direction and angle of dip of fault plane.

Anticline - Solid where accurately located; dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. Arrow indicates direction of axial plunge.

Syncline - Solid where accurately located; dotted where concealed Arrow indicates direction of axial plunge.

Landslide - Arrows indicate principal direction of movement. Quired where existence is questionable Strike and dip of beds
Inclined
Inclined
Inclined
Strike and dip of igneous foliation
Strike and dip of metamorphic foliation
Kgp - Granite pegmatite dike.

Overturned
Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical
Strike and dip of igneous joints
Inclined
Vertical
Strike and dip of sedimentary joints
Vertical
P13
OP12
each
Qope------
Base Map
Onshore base (hypsography, hydrography, and
transportation) from U.S.G.S. digital line graph (DLG)
data, Oceanside 30' x 60' metric quadrangle. Shaded
topographic base from U.S.G.S. digital elevation models (OEM's). Offshore bathymetric contours and shaded
bathymetry from N.O.AA single and multibeam data.

Projection is UTM, zone 11 , North American Datum 1927. -USGS
scionceforechangingworld
This map was funded in part by the U.S. Geological
Survey National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program,
STATEMAP Award no. 01NQAG0092.

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, Southern California Areal Mapping Project.

Copyright e 2007 by the California Department of Conservation.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey.

The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. 70 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30' x 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA Compiled by
Michael P. Kennedy1 and Siang S. Tan1
2007
Digital preparation by
Kelly R. Bovard2 , Rachel M. Alvarez2, Michael J. Watson2 , and Carlos I. Gutierrez1

1. Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey

2. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside _L _ _l!_ ___ _
D
70 _L_
70 --1:r-
-+-
EB
-+-
6D
---l3-
55 ----"----
---
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.

GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A1
A
60 ~
~ !U
t.C 40
~ i:::
!
~
+-
(])
(])
LL.
_J
(/)
~
(])
> 0
.0
<(
C
0 ~
0 > (])
iii
(])
+-
EXISTING T/£D.B,4CI(
SHOTCKETE WAlt.. SEE
Ofi:AWINGS C-9, C. IO &
EKOV/8lE

CONCRETE FIU
0 20 E C.11 FOil OErA/l - - -----1
·x
0 ,._
Q.

Q.
<(
0 0
T7lANSIENr
SANOBEACHl
--- - - - - - --!- - -
NOTE: Thia Croaa Section ia not to be uaad for legal
~'f..".""~~~;:"rt;'"~1.:!~:~~:"!n3':'~o~:lof utllltlea may be obtained from the Approved Building Plana or the •Aa-Bui1t• Grading Plana.
23-14438-AA.dwg
Bates Residence
403 Pacific A venue
Solana Beach, CA.

A•
40l PACIFIC AV£
__ ,. -;~:f ½1]f~\;1WEftfJf tf t;ti?itfJ'.TThfP::1~~~,,,. roPOGKAPHt l ::,_./)' &/STING
/NFl£l
.) _q ·"· ~ :·:•:- ·· .. . , .._,l :,.-. ••-•,l;t: ~• ;;, ;, : •• • .J ~!•":\ .., .,,U •: , , ~\ • .i" • ,'.,•••• ,.,~_;;!•'' .- , -:; ! ~-;::-.• , ! .. :; &ypoint 'Formation .~,,. -:· t ~ --: .•· ·tt -~~--=~·:. ..... :. ·:'!.:~.'·: :,.,·.:; ~-:~;~·~, -~-; , •
-------
120 140 160
Figure No. VI
Job No. 23-14438
180
Relative Horizontal Distance {feet)
Scale: 1" = 20'
{Horizontal and Vertical)
Exploration, Inc. ,~, ~--nk~
~ ~ January 2024

APPENDIX A
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (U.S.C.S.)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Coarse-grained (More than half of material is larger than a No. 200 sieve) GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little (More than half of coarse fraction or no fines.
is larger than No. 4 sieve size, but
smaller than 3”) GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines.

GRAVELS WITH FINES GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures SANDS, CLEAN SANDS SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines (More than half of coarse fraction
is smaller than a No. 4 sieve) SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.

SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.

SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.

Fine-grained (More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve)

SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit Less than 50 ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, silty clays, lean clays.

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.

Liquid Limit Greater than 50 MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils Ii

APPENDIX B

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
In the Coastal Plain region, where the subject property is located, the “basement” consists of Mesozoic crystalline rocks. Basement rocks are also exposed as high relief areas (e.g., Black Mountain northeast of the subject property and Cowles Mountain near the San Carlos area of San Diego). Younger Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments lap up against these older features. These sediments form a “layer cake” sequence of marine and non-marine sedimentary rock units, with some formations up to 140 million years old. Faulting related to the La Nación and Rose Canyon Fault zones has broken up this sequence into a number of distinct fault blocks in the southwestern part of the county. Northwestern portions of the county are relatively undeformed by faulting (Demere, 1997).

The Peninsular Ranges form the granitic spine of San Diego County. These rocks are primarily plutonic, forming at depth beneath the earth’s crust 140 to 90 million years ago as the result of the subduction of an oceanic crustal plate beneath the North American continent. These rocks formed the much larger Southern California batholith. Metamorphism associated with the intrusion of these great granitic masses affected the much older sediments that existed near the surface over that period of time. These metasedimentary rocks remain as roof pendants of marble, schist, slate, quartzite and gneiss throughout the Peninsular Ranges. Locally, Miocene-age volcanic rocks and flows have also accumulated within these mountains (e.g., Jacumba Valley). Regional tectonic forces and erosion over time have uplifted and unroofed these granitic rocks to expose them at the surface (Demere, 1997).

The Salton Trough is the northerly extension of the Gulf of California. This zone is undergoing active deformation related to faulting along the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones, which are part of the major regional tectonic feature in the southwestern portion of California, the San Andreas Fault Zone. Translational movement along these fault zones has resulted in crustal rifting and subsidence. The Salton Trough, also referred to as the Colorado Desert, has been filled with sediments to depth of approximately 5 miles since the movement began in the early Miocene, 24 million years ago. The source of these sediments has been the local mountains as well as the ancestral and modern Colorado River (Demere, 1997).

The San Diego area is part of a seismically active region of California. It is on the eastern boundary of the Southern California Continental Borderland, part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This region is part of a broad tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates. The actual plate boundary is characterized by a complex system of active, major, right-lateral strike-slip faults, trending northwest/southeast. This fault system extends eastward to the San Andreas Fault (approximately 70 miles from San Diego) and westward to the San Clemente Fault (approximately 50 miles off-shore from San Diego) (Berger and Schug, 1991).
ii
APPENDIX B/Page 2
In California, major earthquakes can generally be correlated with movement on active faults. As defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Hart et al., 1980), an "active" fault is one that has had ground surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). In addition, “potentially active fault” has been amended to Pre-Holocene fault: a fault whose recency of past movement is older than 11,700 years, and thus does not meet the criteria of Holocene-Active fault as defined in the State Mining and Geology Board regulations.

A three-tier fault classification is used as follows:
• Active Faults: Faults that have demonstrable surface displacement during Holocene time.
• Potentially Active Faults: Faults with Quaternary displacement but Holocene surface displacement is indeterminate.
• Inactive Faults: Pre-Quaternary faults.

During recent history, prior to April 2010, the San Diego County area has been relatively quiet seismically. The youngest paleoearthquake that cuts the early historical living surface is likely the 1862 San Diego earthquake that had an estimated magnitude of M6 (Singleton et al., 2019). Paleoseismic trenches at the Presidio Hills Golf Course on the main trace of the Rose Canyon Fault contained evidence for historical ground rupturing earthquakes as recently as 1862 and the mid-1700s.

Results of the study also suggest the Rose Canyon Fault has a ~700-800-year recurrence interval (Singleton et al., 2019).

On June 15, 2004, a M5.3 earthquake occurred approximately 45 miles southwest of downtown San Diego (26 miles west of Rosarito, Mexico). Another widely felt earthquake on a distant southern California fault was a M5.4 event that took place on July 29, 2008, west-southwest of the Chino Hills area of Riverside County.

Several earthquakes ranging from M5.0 to M6.0 occurred in northern Baja California, centered in the Gulf of California on August 3, 2009. A M5.8 earthquake followed by a M4.9 aftershock occurred on December 30, 2009, centered about 20 miles south of the Mexican border city of Mexicali.

On April 4, 2010, a large earthquake occurred in Baja California, Mexico. It was widely felt throughout the southwest including Phoenix, Arizona and San Diego in California. This M7.2 event, the Sierra El Mayor earthquake, occurred in northern Baja California, approximately 40 miles south of the Mexico-USA border at shallow depth along the principal plate boundary between the North American and Pacific plates. According to the U. S. Geological Survey this is an area with a high level of historical seismicity, and it has recently also been seismically active, although this is the largest event to strike in this area since 1892. The April 4, 2010, earthquake Ii
APPENDIX B/Page 3
appears to have been larger than the M6.9 earthquake in 1940 or any of the early 20th century events (e.g., 1915 and 1934) in this region of northern Baja California.

This event's aftershock zone extends significantly to the northwest, overlapping with the portion of the fault system that is thought to have ruptured in 1892. Ground motions for the April 4, 2010, main event, recorded at stations in San Diego and reported by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP), ranged up to 0.058g.

On July 7, 2010, a M5.4 earthquake occurred in Southern California at 4:53 pm (Pacific Time) about 30 miles south of Palm Springs, 25 miles southwest of Indio, and 13 miles north-northwest of Borrego Springs. The earthquake occurred near the Coyote Creek segment of the San Jacinto Fault. The earthquake exhibited right lateral slip to the northwest, consistent with the direction of movement on the San Jacinto Fault. It was followed by more than 60 aftershocks of M1.3 and greater during the first hour.

In the last 50 years, there have been four other earthquakes in the magnitude M5.0 range within 20 kilometers of the Coyote Creek segment: M5.8 in 1968, M5.3 on 2/25/1980, M5.0 on 10/31/2001, and M5.2 on 6/12/2005. The biggest earthquake near this location was the M6.0 Buck Ridge earthquake on 3/25/1937. ii

APPENDIX C
Coastal Hazard and Wave Run Up Analysis
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
December 4, 2023
By Geosoils, Inc.
ii
Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com December 4, 2023
Mr. Jay Heiser
Geotechnical Exploration Inc.
7420 Trade Street
San Diego, CA 92121
Subject: Coastal Hazard Discussion for Proposed Remodel at 403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Heiser:

GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to provide this coastal hazard discussion for the proposed remodel at 403 Pacific, Solana Beach, CA. The analysis is based upon our review of the project plans, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) Sea Level Rise (SLR) 2018 guidance document, our site inspection, and knowledge of local coastal conditions. This report provides the necessary coastal hazard information for the project requested by the City of Solana Beach, and typically requested by the CCC.

INTRODUCTION
The project site is a single family residence located at 403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, California. The proposed project is a minor remodel that includes replacing and adding new windows, new roofing, new siding, and modification of interior walls. There are no new footings or foundation elements proposed and no change in the actual footprint of the development. It is GSI’s experience that this scope of remodel would not be considered “new development,” and does not extend the life of the existing development. Figure 1 is a 2022 “birds-eye” photograph showing the site and adjacent properties. There CCC approved a seawall at the site under Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 6-04-83. The permit was issued because the bluff fronting the existing residence did not have an adequate factor of safety against failure, and the residence was in jeopardy from erosion. The seawall has been in place for about 20 years and had no visible impact of the adjacent shoreline. The top of the bluff is at an elevation of approximately +80 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29) and the top of the permitted shore protection is at approximately +37 feet NGVD29. The beach near the site has been nourished in the past with sand as part of a regional beach nourishment program. 2 Figure 1. Subject site, seawall, and adjacent properties in 2022.

DATUM AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
The datum used in this report is the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29). In the open ocean of the San Diego County coast, Mean High Water (MHW) is approximately 2.3 feet above NGVD29, and MLLW is approximately 2.3 feet below NGVD29. The units of measurement in this report are feet (ft), pounds force (lbs), and second (sec). A site topographic survey was taken from the approved plans by Terra Costa Consulting Group, the seawall project engineer.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is shown in Figure 2. The proposed remodel is located in the FEMA X Zone. The base flood elevation (BFE) of the VE Zone at the site seawall is +23 feet NAVD88 (approximately +20.0 feet NGVD29). This roughly corresponds to the FEMA estimate of wave runup limit on the bluff/seawall. This FEMA BFE does not include SLR over the life of the project. In consideration of the age of the existing residence (decades), the life of the proposed remodel is about 50 years. Typically, the life of the “new development” is about 75 years. It should be noted that the permit for the existing seawall requires the owner to apply for an amendment to the seawall permit in about 10 years. 3 Figure 2. Proposed 2018 FEMA panel and f lood zones for the site.

COASTAL HAZARDS
There are three different potential oceanographic hazards identified for most coastal sites: wave runup/attack, shoreline erosion, and ocean flooding. For ease of review, each of these hazards will be analyzed and discussed separately, followed by a summary of the analysis including conclusions and recommendations as necessary.

WAVE RUNUP ANALYSIS
As waves encounter the beach in front of this section of shoreline, the water rushes up the beach as well as the bluff and existing shore protection. Wave runup is defined as the vertical height above the still water level to which a wave will rise on a structure of infinite height. Overtopping is the flow rate of water over the top of a finite height structure as a result of wave runup. The elevation of the top of the seawall is about +37 feet NGVD29. The top of the bluff is at an elevation+80 feet NGVD29.

Wave runup on the proposed seawall is calculated using the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Automated Coastal Engineering System, ACES. The methods to calculate runup implemented within this ACES application are discussed in greater detail in the Coastal Engineering Manual (2004). The runup estimates calculated herein are corrected for the effect of onshore winds. The runup analysis will consider the maximum credible SLR over the project design life (75 years) to determine if wave runup will exceed the top of the seawall elevation or impact the proposed remodel. Figure 3 from the ACES manual shows some of the variables involved in the runup analysis.

Zone VE
(EL 23)
4 Figure 3. Wave runup terms from ACES analysis.

Ds is the depth of the water at the toe of the seawall.

H I is the breaking wave height at the at the toe
R is the height of the wave runup above the still water elevation Hs is the height of the seawall above the toe
È is the slope of the seawall
Ö is the nearshore slope or slope from the shoreline to beyond the breakers Oceanographic Design Parameters
The wave, wind, and water level data used as inputs to the ACES runup analysis were taken from the historical data reported in USACOE CCSTWS report #88-6, and updated as necessary.

The San Diego North County shoreline has experienced a series of storms over the years. These events have impacted coastal property and beaches depending upon the severity of the storm, the direction of wave approach and the local shoreline orientation. The ACES analysis was performed on oceanographic conditions that represent a typical 75- to 100-year recurrence storm.

Project SLR
The historical water levels (tides) in the project area are well documented. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric (NOAA) National Ocean Survey tidal data station closest to the project site is at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography La Jolla Pier Station. The current (last tidal epoch) tidal datum elevations in feet are as follows:

MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (MHHW) = 3.03
MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW) = 2.30
MEAN TIDE LEVEL (MTL) = 0.45
MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL) = 0.43
h s
5 NGVD29 = 0.00
MEAN LOW WATER (MLW) =-1.39
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER (MLLW) =-2.30
The maximum historical water elevation at the site including El Niño effects is approximately +5.3 feet NGVD29. The top of the seawall is at approximately +37 feet NGVD29 and thus is over 30 feet above the historical El Niño highest water elevation. The bluff is at elevation +85 NGVD29 and well beyond the limit of wave runup. As a result, the seawall top and bluff top are located at an elevation that would not expose it to flooding from the ocean under current sea level conditions.

Future Water Levels Due to Sea Level Rise (SLR)
Any incorporation of sea level rise (SLR) in a project needs to appropriately consider several factors that include: the expected life of the structure, the range of future SLR estimates and their accuracy, and the elevation of the proposed seawall. The coastal hazard analysis should use the best available science to determine a sea level rise (SLR) range, which currently, per CCC mandate, is the 2018 California Ocean Protection Council (COPC) SLR Guidance. This is stated in the November 2018 CCC SLR Guidance update. The COPC’s SLR projection probabilities are based upon a report by Robert E. Kopp and others (Kopp et al., 2014). The design life of a residential structure is 75 years; we will thus conservatively estimate the end of the structure’s design life to be the year 2098. The Kopp paper has three emission scenarios (low, medium, and high), which the 2018 OPC narrowed down to just low and high (no medium emission scenario).

The Kopp et al paper does state that “local decisions require local projections that accommodate different risk tolerances that can be linked to storm surge projections.” The SLR tables in the CCC 2018 Guidance have been modified by the CCC and don’t provide the complete data set from the COPC document with the best available science. The following Figure 4 is taken from the 2018 OPC SLR Guidance for the closest tidal station in La Jolla. Projections for the year 2098 are not provided in the COPC table and therefore must be extrapolated from the projections provided for 2090 and 2100. Based upon current NOAA (NOAA, 2022) and NASA (NASA, 2023) information (the best available SLR science), and Figure 4, the year 2098 the SLR is reasonably determined to be between 5.25 and 6.45, with a midpoint of about 5.8 feet. 6 Figure 4. Sea level rise prediction comparison with the CCC range estimates.

The proposed remodel has a conservative design life of 75 years. Using the OPC SLR estimate along with NOAA and NASA science over the project design life, the range in the year 2098 is between 2.5 feet (the “likely” low emission SLR), and 5.8 feet on the high end. This is the projected sea level rise range for the proposed project.

The wave that has the greatest runup is the wave that has not yet broken when it reaches the toe of the structure (bluff or seawall). It is not the largest wave to come into the area. The larger waves break offshore and loose much of their energy before reaching the shoreline. The maximum scour at the seawall and natural bluff toe is about elevation -2 feet MSL. If the total water depth for the maximum SLR case (5.3 feet NGVD29 + 5.8 feet SLR) is the water elevation minus the scour depth, then water depth is 13.1 feet. The maximum wave runup is from the wave that breaks just at the toe of the bluff. This is a depth limited case where the breaker height is 78% of the water depth. Therefore, the design wave height is 10.3 feet with a chosen period of 15 seconds (a peak period for storm waves at the site). This design wave determination is consistent with the guidelines in the current FEMA specifications. Because our analysis uses conservative oceanographic design conditions (largest wave, highest still water elevation, and scoured beach), the longshore transport rate and the seasonal beach profile changes are not relevant. Table I is the ACES output for these design conditions. GSI also analyzed the impact of 7.1 feet of SLR on the site and it is provided in Table II.

LA JOLLA

STATION
LOW Medium. High Extreme R:lsk Aversion Risk Aversion Risk Ave rsion High emissions 1030 0 .5 0.4 0 .6 0.7 0.9 1.1
1040 0.7 0 .5 0 .9 1.0 1.3 1.8
1050 0.9 0.7 12 1.4 2.0 2.8 ------- Low emissions 1060 1.0 0.7 1.3 1.7 2.5 ff lgh emissions 1060 1.2 0.9 1.6 1.9 2.7 3.9
Low emissions 1070 1.2 0.9 1.6 2.0 3.1
High emissions 1070 1.5 1.1 2 .0 2.5 3.6 5.2
Low emissions 1080 1.4 1.0 1.9 2.4 4 .0
ff lgh emissions 1080 1.9 1.3 2.5 3.1 4.6 6.7
Low emissions 1090 1.6 1.0 2.2 2.9 4.8
ff lgh emissions 1090 2.2 1.6 3.0 3.8 5.7 8.3
Low emissions 1100 1.7 1.1 2.5 3.3 5.8
High emissions 1100 2.6 1.8 3.6 4.6 7.1 10.2
7 Table I
Table II
The maximum wave runup with 5.8 feet of SLR is elevation +36.1 feet NGVD29 (25 + 11.1 feet NGVD29). It should be noted that the foregoing runup analysis doesn’t take into account the textured face of the bluff or the seawall. Because of the roughened face of the wall and the bluff, wave runup will not exceed elevation +35 feet NGVD29 in the future including consideration of

5.8 feet of SLR. For 7.1 feet of SLR the wave runup on the site may reach elevation +40 feet NGVD29, which is well below the top of the bluff.

ACES I Mode: Single Case I Functional Area: Wave - Structure Interaction App Ii cat ion: Wave Runup and Overtopping on Impermeable Structures Item Unit Value Smooth Slope
Runup and
Incident Wave Height Hi: ft 8.100 Overtopping
Wave Period T: sec 16.000
COTAN of Nearshore Slope COT(SIS): 50.000
Water Depth at Structure Toe ds: ft 10.i00 403 Pacific
COTAN of Structure Slope COTC8): 0.030
Structure Height Above Toe hs: ft 37.000
Wave
Wave Runup R: ft 25.028
Onshore Wind Velocity U: ft/sec Runup 16.878
Deepwater Wave Height HO: ft 5.3i6
Relative Height ds/HO: 1.9i6
Wave Steepness HO/(gT"2): 0.0006'19
Overtopping Coefficient «: 0.070000 5.8 FT SLR
Overtopping Coefficient Qstar0: 0.ffi0000
Overtopping Rate Q: ft~3/s-ft 0.000
ACES I Mode: Single Case I Functional Area: Wave - Structure Interaction Application: Wave Runup and Overtopping on Impermeable Structures Item Unit Value Smooth Slope
Runup and
Incident Wave Height Hi: ft 10.900 Overtopping
Wave Period T: sec 16.000
COTAN of Nearshore Slope COT(SIS): 70.000
Water Depth 403 Pacific at Structure Toe ds: ft H.100
COTAN of Structure Slope COTC8): 0.030
Structure Height Above Toe hs: ft 37.000
Wave
Wave Runup R: ft 28.ffii
Onshore Wind Velocity U: Runup ft/sec 16.878
Deepwater Wave Height HO: ft 7.728
Relative Height ds/HO: 1.825
Wave Steepness HO/(gT"2): 0.000938
Overtopping Coefficient «: 7.1 FT SLR 0.070000
Overtopping Coefficient Qstar0: 0.ffi0000
Overtopping Rate Q: ft~3/s-ft 0.83i
8 BLUFF RETREAT RATE
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS produced a report in 2007 concerning cliff retreat along the California coast, including the Solana Beach area (Hapke and Reid, 2007), which states, “Rates of change are being published for the purpose of regional characterization. The results and products prepared by USGS are not intended for comprehensive detailed site specific analysis of cliff retreat.” The analysis was based upon just two data points (historical bluff tops). The first data point was 1933 NOS Topographic Maps (T-Sheets), which included significant uncertainties. For instance, the measurement uncertainties (see page 9 of Hapke and Reid [2007]) of the bluff top location in 1933 had a total position uncertainty of 10.8 meters, or approximately 35 feet. The second data point was 1998 Lidar data with a total position uncertainty of 1.4 meters or roughly 5 feet. The annualized retreat rate uncertainly is reported to be 0.2 m/yr (0.656 ft/yr). What this means is that the retreat rate can be ± 0.65 ft/yr of the reported retreat rate. The uncertainty is on the order of the actual measurement.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
The USACOE and the cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach prepared a joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) in 2015 to evaluate potential options for reducing storm damage related coastal erosion over a 50- year period anticipated to occur from 2018 through 2068. This included cost assessments of damages caused by bluff erosion and shoreline restoration for the cities. In order for the cities to receive federal funding for shoreline restoration, the USACOE report needed to demonstrate that the benefit to cost ratio was significant, or greater than 1.0. While the subject site is located within a reach of the Solana Beach shoreline examined by the USACOE, their findings are NOT specific to the subject property. The 2015 USACOE report documented a historical (Pre-Anthropengic) retreat rate near Fletcher Cove of 0.116 ft/yr. In addition, for the section of shoreline from Table Tops Reef to Fletcher Cove the estimated future bluff retreat rate ranges from 0.4 ft/yr to 1.2 ft/yr. These are estimates for a length of shoreline that is roughly 3,500 feet long and has varying geologic profiles and geologic structures. The 2015 USACOE report clearly states that the bluff top erosion rates will be less where a partially cemented cap is present. This cemented cap condition exists at the site and can be seen in Figure 1 above.

Under the CDP for the seawall the bluff retreat rate used for the sand fee calculation was 0.3 ft/yr.

With the seawall in place the bluff retreat rate will be approximately 0 ft/yr. A simple comparison of historical and current aerial photographs of the site can be used to estimate the actual retreat at this site. The University of California at Santa Barbara aerial photograph collection has a 1932 photograph that can be downloaded and compared with the current Google Earth image. Figure 5 is a portion of the 1932 image and Figure 6 is the same area in a June 2023 image from Google Earth.
9 Figure 5. 1932 photograph showing the street, the site, and the top of the bluff.

Figure 6. June 2023 photograph of the site for comparison with Figure 5.

SITE
10 Carefully overlaying these photographs, taken over 90 years apart, reveals that very little movement (erosion) of the bluff top has occurred at this site. Using the street locations to estimate a scale, the bluff top appears to have moved (eroded) about 5 feet in the last 90 years. This translates into a historical bluff retreat of 0.06 ft/yr. In contrast, using the CDP permit sand fee erosion rate of 0.3 ft/yr, which would mean that the bluff moved about 27 feet over that 90 year period. This amount of erosion clearly didn’t happen as evidenced by the images.

With the seawall in place the bluff retreat rate will be approximately 0 ft/yr. The site historical bluff top retreat rate is reasonably estimated to be 0.1 ft/yr. In the absence of the seawall the potential retreat rate will transition from the current rate to the future rate. The retreat rate from 1932 to 2023 is estimated to be 0.1 ft/yr. The retreat rate in the year 2100 with 5.8 feet SLR may be as much as

0.3 ft/yr. The expected retreat rate for the next 20 to 25 years will be the historical retreat rate of

0.1 ft/yr primarily because there is little expected SLR in the next 20 to 25 years. The maximum likely SLR from the CCC guidance for the year 2047 is about 1.7 feet and the minimum is about 2 feet. These estimates represent a small change in the 10-foot tidal range, 20% or less. As such, the impact of SLR on bluff retreat rate at year 25 will be less than 20% of the current retreat rate. This analysis uses area-specific calculated historical bluff retreat, justified and probable SLR over the next 75 years, and reasonable methodology to calculate the potential future retreat rate over the project life.

COASTAL FLOODING
Due to the project elevation there is no coastal flooding hazard at the site. The existing site drainage has performed adequately to mitigate the impacts of rain.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SLR POLICY GUIDANCE INFORMATION Step 1. Establish the projected sea level rise range for the proposed project’s planning horizon using the best available science.

Using the CCC SLR estimate over the project maximum potential design life, the range in the year 2098 is between 2.5 feet and 5.8 feet. This is the sea level rise range for the proposed project.

Based upon the latest NASA and NOAA SLR science it is likely that SLR will be much less.

Step 2. Determine how physical impacts from sea level rise may constrain the project site, including erosion, structural and geologic stability, flooding, and inundation.

This report demonstrates that the remodel project is reasonably safe from SLR related coastal hazards.
11 Step 3. Determine how the project may impact coastal resources, considering the influence of future sea level rise upon the landscape as well as potential impacts of sea level rise adaptation strategies that may be used over the lifetime of the project.

The remodel project itself will not impact coastal resources. The seawall will prevent the erosion of the bluff, and the resulting deposit of bluff material onto the beach. However, the owner is required to revisit this issue within the next 10 years as part of the seawall CDP.

Step 4. Identify alternatives to avoid resource impacts and minimize risks throughout the expected life of the development.

The project has no resource impacts. The impact of preventing bluff material erosion on the sand supply is mitigated through mandatory sand mitigation fees.

Step 5. Finalize project design and submit CDP application.

The project designer will be provided this report.

In conclusion, coastal hazards, which include shoreline erosion, wave and wave runup attack, and flooding, will not impact the proposed remodel development over its projected life.

The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned.

Respectfully Submitted,
GeoSoils Inc.

David W. Skelly, RCE #47857

REFERENCES
California Coastal Commission, 2018, Updated California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise policy guidance, interpretative guidelines for addressing sea level rise in local coastal programs and coastal development permits.

Hapke, Cheryl J. and, Reid, David; 2007, National Assessment of Shoreline Change Part 4: Historical Coastal Cliff Retreat Along the California Coast: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2007-1133.

Hapke, Cheryl J.; Reid, David; Richmond, Bruce M.; Ruggiero, Peter; and List, Jeff; 2006, National assessment of shoreline change part 3: historical shoreline change and associated coastal land loss along sandy shorelines of the California coast: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1219.

Kopp, Robert E., Radley M. Horton Christopher M. Little Jerry X. Mitrovica Michael Oppenheimer D. J. Rasmussen Benjamin H. Strauss Claudia Tebaldi Radley M. Horton, Christopher M. Little, Jerry X. Mitrovica, Michael Oppenheimer D. J. Rasmussen Benjamin H. Strauss Claudia Tebaldi “Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites” First published: 13 June 2014 NASA, 2023, IPCC 6th Assessment Report Sea Level Projection Tool, https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ipcc-ar6-sea-level-projection-tool.

NOAA, 2023, https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datums.html?id=9410660 Sea Level Rise Technical Report dated February 2022,
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2015, Encinitas-Solana Beach coastal storm damage reduction project, San Diego County, California, Appendix C, geotechnical engineering.

Hazards by Location
Search Information
Coordinates: 32.9968, -117.2757
Elevation: 79 ft
Timestamp: 2024-01-11T22:42:48.464Z
Hazard Type: Seismic
Reference Document: ASCE7-16
Risk Category: II
Site Class: D
Basic Parameters
Name Value Description
SS 1.24 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)
S1 0.44 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)
SMS 1.245 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 * null Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SDS 0.83 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA
SD1 * null Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA
* See Section 11.4.8
Additional Information
Name Value Description
SDC * null Seismic design category
Fa 1.004 Site amplification factor at 0.2s
Fv* null Site amplification factor at 1.0s
CRS 0.875 Coefficient of risk (0.2s)
CR1 0.895 Coefficient of risk (1.0s)
PGA 0.558 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 0.614 Site modified peak ground acceleration
TL 8 Long-period transition period (s)
SsRT 1.24 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s) SsUH 1.417 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
SsD 1.855 Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s) S1RT 0.44 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s) S1UH 0.492 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
S1D 0.645 Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s) PGAd 0.765 Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA) * See Section 11.4.8
The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with design.

Please note that the ATC Hazards by Location website will not be updated to support ASCE 7-22. Find out why.

Disclaimer
Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services.

While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report. 79 ft
Map data ©2024 Google Report a map error
D

1.86 0.545

0.818

APPENDIX D
l\TC
Veter
' w
Go gle

A P P E N D I X E
Slope Stability Analysis
ii

1.809

2.047

2.127

1.901

2.265
250.00 lbs/ft2

2.047

2.127

1.901

2.265
403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Baypoint FormaƟon (Qop 6-7) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 34 None 0 Clean Sands 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 800 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete Fill 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.1/3/2024, 1:08:25 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

Safety Factor

0.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:300 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_01.slim Date 1/3/2024, 1:08:25 PM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039

SECTION A-A'
Static circular analysis ofthe upper portion of the bluff.

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
-~~
.... l---------------r------,---------------------1

1.436

1.760

1.447

1.704

1.618

1.968

1.735

1.436
250.00 lbs/ft2 1.760 1.447

1.704

1.618

1.968

1.735

1.436 403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Baypoint FormaƟon (Qop 6-7) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 34 None 0 Clean Sands 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 800 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete Fill 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.1/4/2024, 3:04:57 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

0.15 Safety Factor

0.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:300 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_01w_0.15gSHAKE.slim Date 1/4/2024, 3:04:57 PM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039

SECTION A-A'
Seismic circular analysisof the upper portion of the bluff.

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
-~----::~ t---------------~------,------------------.
29 March 2024
Smith Brothers Construction Job No. 23-14438
P.O. Box 1068
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Attn: Mr. Jeff Smith
Subject: Response to City of Solana Beach Comments
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
Dear Mr. Smith:

At the request of Mr. Reggie Reyes and as required by the City of Solana Beach reviewer, we are responding to the following comments presented in the Geotechnical Review by Universal Engineering Sciences, Job No. 4830.2400013 dated March 1, 2024, for the subject project.

Comment No. 1: The applicant’s geotechnical engineer states that they used laboratory data from a nearby site on Pacific Avenue to derive soil strength parameters for the provided slope stability analysis. Nevertheless, the soil parameters applied by the engineer appear appropriate and conservative for the soil materials being modeled. Please note that LCP Policy 4.25 requires that shear strength parameters be derived from relatively undeformed samples collected at the site (emphasis added).

It is requested that the applicant provide soil shear strength laboratory data for samples collected from the subject site, and if applicable, revise the slope stability analysis based on these values. The applicant may also submit the report they referenced for the soil shear strength values used in the current slope stability analysis as additional support for their soil parameter selection.

GEI Response: Based on the current scope of the project, we did not perform a deep boring to obtain soil samples representative of the bluff materials for our slope stability analysis. We only performed shallow exploratory excavations adjacent to the existing residence foundation. Since we have performed several other borings for past projects on Pacific Avenue, we assigned conservative shear strength values based on the results of those borings and laboratory testing for use in our slope 4~&11 Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 7420 TRADE STREET• SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: [email protected] Bates Residence Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 2
stability analysis. We have included a copy of our previous geotechnical report for 141 Pacific Avenue, dated November 8, 2017.

Comment No. 2: The applicant applies a FOS of 1.5 for their static slope stability analysis. The City’s LCP Policy 4.25 indicates a pseudo-static FOS of 1.2 should also be performed.

GEI Response: Our slope stability analysis in the geotechnical report included a static slope stability analysis as well as a pseudo-static slope stability analysis.

Comment No. 3: To supplement the submitted geotechnical report, it is requested that the applicant provide on their plot plan and geologic map the locations of the geologic cross-sections utilized for the slope stability analysis and the locations of Geologic Setback Lines (GSLs) for both static and pseudo-static conditions GEI Response: We have included the location of our geologic cross section as well as the geologic setback lines on the plot plan and geologic map (see Figure No. II).

The findings and opinions presented here have been made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering within the City of Solana Beach. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 23-14438 will help expedite a response to your inquiry.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
_______________________________ ______________________________ Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. Jay K. Heiser
R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Project Geologist
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
_______________________________
Leslie D. Reed, President
C.E.G. 999/P.G. 3391
ay K. Heiser
- . . - '
SITE
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA.

Figure No. I
Job No. 23-14438
Thomas Bros. Guide San Diego County pg 1167-E6

VICINITY MAP

PACIFIC
OCEAN

SAN ELIJO LAGC
~ PLAZAW~
~ ~ ---\. 'f: p.ooO v,
Santa Fe Christian~ CommunityHs
nta Fe Christi,,n ~ @ Community Es \!!I>-
1ff /s~~ ~1 / s~I
c,,'i).

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
s 18° 46' 54" V"'i 124.60' PROPERTY LINE ----·----------~---------~ (E) STREET CURB
n -=------Oaf- -==--------~ (E) GONG
(E) PLAN' Ei O p -;;;..;;;;;;;;;JLJ.!H.!!P~-~2 ,;;;;;;;;;;~~;::::Lfl~~.;;;;t;;....;;;;;;;;;;;....;;;;;;;;;....;;;;;;;;;;....,;;;;;V'IA;;;..L~;;;..~..;;;;'Wl-;- ~ -~ - ---la 6 (E) LANDSCAPE
I
(E)

LANDS APE
I DI t
I 1~
10 I
A
1'1"
0 5
I I
Graphic Scale
l" =10'
'<o
10 I
-< ~~ 'Ob 6o//) 'C
15 I
REFERENCE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legal
purposes. Locations and dimensions are approximate.

Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities
may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans
or the "As-Built" Grading Plans.
--. 1....,
...........

EXISTING 2 STOR SINGLE FAMILY

RESID NGE
~ ~ ---+-________.. ........
)-=HP-3 ~ Qaf
Qop 6
I
EXISTING 3 GAR.

ATTACHED
GAR.AGE
* Based on GEi
Slope Stability
Analysis

GEOLOGIC LEGEND
Qaf Artificial Fill
Qop Old Paralic Deposits , Unit 6
6 MAIN LEVEL PLAN G)
I
LEGEND
~ HP-3 Approximate Location
of Exploratory Handpit
D Bates Residence
A' I Cross Section Location
(E) STON ;
PATIO Td
REMAI
I A'
-I
~ (E) CONCRETE]~

DRIVEY'IAY TO
REMAIN =
(E) SITE V'IALL 4
G-,,t>,TI=
q
ttJ
~
uJ
a
~ (E)
25' -0" LAND APE
F.Y.S.B .
,,
-
-
0 ~ m
z
C
m
(E) LANDSCAPE
(E) FENCE

POT PLAN AND

SI E SPECIFIC

GEOLOGIC MAP
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA.

Figure No. II
Job No. 23-14438
•r.:-~ Geotechnical
;'"11 Exploration, Inc.

A ril 2024
1 SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some roots. Loose to medium dense. Damp.

Gray-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained; poorly
cemented. Medium dense. Damp. Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
-- 15% passing #200 sieve.

Footing : 24" deep, 14" wide.
-- 23% passing #200 sieve.

Bottom @ 5'

98.2 120.49.6

5.1 7.4
SM
SM
DEPTH (feet)

FIGURE NUMBER
23-14438

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
1 2
3 4
5 6

JOB NUMBER SAMPLE
HP-1

DATE LOGGED
Not Encountered
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bates Residence SYMBOL BLOW COUNTS/FT.

REVIEWED BY
± 78' Mean Sea Level JKH
IIIa
1 SITE LOCATION

JOB NAME
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

LDR/JAC

SURFACE ELEVATION LOGGED BY
3' X 3' X 5' Handpit

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools
EXPLORATION LOG 14438 BATES.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 12/11/23
(%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
1 SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some gravel. Loose to medium dense. Damp.

Gray-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained;
moderately cemented. Medium dense. Damp.

Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
Footing : 24" deep.
-- 19% passing #200 sieve.

Bottom @ 3'

7.0 SM
SM
DEPTH (feet)

FIGURE NUMBER
23-14438

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
1 2
3 4

JOB NUMBER SAMPLE
HP-2

DATE LOGGED
Not Encountered
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bates Residence SYMBOL BLOW COUNTS/FT.

REVIEWED BY
± 75' Mean Sea Level JKH
IIIb
1 SITE LOCATION

JOB NAME
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

LDR/JAC

SURFACE ELEVATION LOGGED BY
3' X 3' X 3' Handpit

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools
EXPLORATION LOG 14438 BATES.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 12/11/23
(%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
~ L_ ______________________ __, f'-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
1 SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some roots. Loose to medium dense. Damp.

Gray-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained;
moderately cemented. Medium dense. Damp.

Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
-- 15% passing #200 sieve.

Bottom @ 4'

9.2 SM
SM
DEPTH (feet)

FIGURE NUMBER
23-14438

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NUMBER SAMPLE
HP-3

DATE LOGGED
Not Encountered
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bates Residence SYMBOL BLOW COUNTS/FT.

REVIEWED BY
± 75' Mean Sea Level JKH
IIIc
1 SITE LOCATION

JOB NAME
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

LDR/JAC

SURFACE ELEVATION LOGGED BY
3' X 3' X 4' Handpit

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools
EXPLORATION LOG 14438 BATES.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 12/11/23
(%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
- lo -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
WATER CONTENT, %

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Water Content 9.6
Source of Material
Description of Material
DRY DENSITY, pcf
SILTY SAND (SM), Red-brown
ASTM D1557 Method A
HP-1 @ 1.5'
120.4 PCF
%
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:

2.80 2.70

2.60 Test Method
Expansion Index (EI)
Figure Number: IV
Job Name: Bates Residence
Site Location: 403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
Job Number: 23-14438 COMPACTION + EI DARK GRID 14438 BATES.GPJ GEI FEB06.GDT 12/11/23 I\ ' \ \
\ \
\ ' \
\ \ \ \ 1
\ \
\ ' I\ '
\ \ \ 1
\ \
I\ ' I\ '
,. ·'-' \ \
I\ \
\ \ \
I\ \
\ \ \ \ '
\ \
\ '
\ \
\ '
\ \ I\ \ '
\ I\
I\ \
\ I\ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ '\
\ \ '
\ I'\ I\
\ \
\ ' \ '
\ I\
'\ \ lo.
\ '\
\ I\
\ \ \.
\ I\ '
\ \ \
" ' \ '\ I\.
'\ \
' ' I\ '-
'\ I'\ 1"-
\
I"' ' ' I'\..
"' '\ '\ ..
"' " ""
I'\. I"' .......
'\ " .......
1"- "' I\..
" '\ .... ,
' "' " " "
-~~-..

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
'~~~ ~
SITE

PACIFIC
OCEAN
Figure No. V Job No. 23-14438
BATES-GEO-OC.ai
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach CA.

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS
SITE

EXCERPT FROM
Qop Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 6
March 2024

ONSHORE MAP SYMBOLS
Contact - Contact between geologic units; dotted where concealed.

Fault - Solid where accurately located; dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. U = upthrown block, D = downthrown block. Arrow and number indicate direction and angle of dip of fault plane.

Anticline - Solid where accurately located; dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. Arrow indicates direction of axial plunge.

Syncline - Solid where accurately located; dotted where concealed Arrow indicates direction of axial plunge.

Landslide - Arrows indicate principal direction of movement. Quired where existence is questionable Strike and dip of beds
Inclined
Inclined
Inclined
Strike and dip of igneous foliation
Strike and dip of metamorphic foliation
Kgp - Granite pegmatite dike.

Overturned
Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical
Strike and dip of igneous joints
Inclined
Vertical
Strike and dip of sedimentary joints
Vertical
P13
OP12
each
Qope------
Base Map
Onshore base (hypsography, hydrography, and
transportation) from U.S.G.S. digital line graph (DLG)
data, Oceanside 30' x 60' metric quadrangle. Shaded
topographic base from U.S.G.S. digital elevation models (OEM's). Offshore bathymetric contours and shaded
bathymetry from N.O.AA single and multibeam data.

Projection is UTM, zone 11 , North American Datum 1927. -USGS
scionceforechangingworld
This map was funded in part by the U.S. Geological
Survey National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program,
STATEMAP Award no. 01NQAG0092.

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, Southern California Areal Mapping Project.

Copyright e 2007 by the California Department of Conservation.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey.

The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. 70 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30' x 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA Compiled by
Michael P. Kennedy1 and Siang S. Tan1
2007
Digital preparation by
Kelly R. Bovard2 , Rachel M. Alvarez2, Michael J. Watson2 , and Carlos I. Gutierrez1

1. Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey

2. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside _L _ _l!_ ___ _
D
70 _L_
70 --1:r-
-+-
EB
-+-
6D
---l3-
55 ----"----
---
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.

GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A1
A
80 ~
(I)
(I)
LL
60 _J
V,
~
~ (I)
>
0 .0
<(
Bates Residence
403 Pacific A venue
Solana Beach, CA.

A•
401 PACIFIC AVE
ff ;f.lti;~f ;;S\0}1:KtJJft~~ftf®1;1I$i;;7'
·".L.~.1.;~1'· I(•
: ~
-~;J}\:·• ,, .... "·· :: . .. . .. s.
,;:)if'; jt'·
.:r•-•.':r,,· ~•-;.:-·.~ :i• ... :, --.u ·:,, ~~\.f. :., .• .. i ·;- tJaypo;nt Formation .:·• .. -:·
.. :1,.1~··:~-:..···~-'-:.-( :· =-.- -~-r~;i··;.J::
~
~ 40 C
~ 0
~
~ 0
>
~ (I)

EROOIBLE

CONCRETE FIU
_..._..._.,,.t.Jl. :~~---t tff { • - - - - - - -
.. ~~.~ ,..- C/un Sands
Qop
6 UJ EXISTING TlED-BACI(
~ (I) SffOTCRETE WALL.. SU
+- DA',4WTNGS C-9, C-10 &
0 C-11 ll)R OETAIL 20 E · ·x
0 ,._
Q. TRANSIENT Q.
<(
__ __ _::u.a,~---
0 0
NOTE: This Cross Section Is not to be used for legol
purpoaea. Locations and dimenaiona ars approxi- mate. Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans or the "As-Built" Grading Plans.
23-14438-AA.dwg
. '
Relative Horizontal Distance (feet)
Scale: 1" = 20'
(Horizontal and Vertical)
120 140 160 180
Figure No. VI
Job No. 23-14438
4rlf4" r,ote<hnkal Exploration, Inc.
~ March2024

A P P E N D I X A
Slope Stability Analysis
ii

1.809

2.047

2.127

1.901

2.265
250.00 lbs/ft2

2.047

2.127

1.901

2.265
403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Baypoint FormaƟon (Qop 6-7) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 34 None 0 Clean Sands 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 800 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete Fill 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.1/3/2024, 1:08:25 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

Safety Factor

0.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:300 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_01.slim Date 1/3/2024, 1:08:25 PM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039

SECTION A-A'
Static circular analysis ofthe upper portion of the bluff.

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
-~~
.... l---------------r------,---------------------1

1.436

1.760

1.447

1.704

1.618

1.968

1.735

1.436
250.00 lbs/ft2 1.760 1.447

1.704

1.618

1.968

1.735

1.436 403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Baypoint FormaƟon (Qop 6-7) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 34 None 0 Clean Sands 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 800 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete Fill 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.1/4/2024, 3:04:57 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

0.15 Safety Factor

0.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:300 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_01w_0.15gSHAKE.slim Date 1/4/2024, 3:04:57 PM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039

SECTION A-A'
Psuedo-Static circular analysis of the upper portion of the bluff.

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
-~----::~ t---------------~------,------------------.

1.537
250.00 lbs/ft2
403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Baypoint FormaƟon (Qop 6-7) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 300 34 None 0 Clean Sands 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 800 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete Fill 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.1/3/2024, 1:08:25 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

15.4 ft
Safety Factor

0.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:300 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_01.slim Date 1/3/2024, 1:08:25 PM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
Static circular analysis ofthe bluff. The shear values for the (Qop6-7) were lowered inthis analysis in order to determine a minimum factor of safety value of 1.5 per LCULUP policy 4.25. The factor of safety value of 1.5 is located 15.4 feet away from the top of the bluff in this analysis.

Geotechnical SECTION A-A'
Exploration, Inc.
---=--~
.... ~-----------,-------,-----------------~

1.274
250.00 lbs/ft2
403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Baypoint FormaƟon (Qop 6-7) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 300 34 None 0 Clean Sands 120 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30 None 0
Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 800 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete Fill 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.1/3/2024, 1:08:25 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

17.9 ft

0.15 Safety Factor

0.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:300 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_01w_0.15gSHAKE.slim Date 1/3/2024, 1:08:25 PM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
Pseudo-static circular reanalysisof the bluff. The shear values for the (Qop6-7) were lowered from our previous analysis in this analysis in order to determine a minimum factor of safety value of 1.2 per LCP policy 4.25. The minimum factor of safety value of 1.2 is located 17.9 feet away from the top of the bluff in this analysis.

Geotechnical SECTION A-A'
Exploration, Inc.
1---------------,---------,------------------------i

A P P E N D I X B
Report of Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation
and Reconnaissance;
Bradberry Residence;
Report Date: November 08,
2017; Job No. 17-11545
ii

REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATION

AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions
141 Pacific Street
Solana Beach, California
JOB NO. 17-11545
08 November 2017
Prepared for:

Travis and Maribel Bradberry
B
08 November 2017
Travis and Maribel Bradberry Job No. 17-11545
141 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions
141 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bradberry:

In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the geotechnical and general geologic conditions at the location of the existing residence at 141 Pacific Avenue. Additionally, we have performed a geologic reconnaissance of the site and a bluff evaluation, per the requirements of the City of Solana Beach. The field work was performed on January 7 and 10, 2017.

In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site preparation, the site will be suited for both the proposed remodel and the new construction.

This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Reference to our Job No. 17-11545 will expedite a response to your inquiries.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
_______________________________ ______________________________ Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. Jay K. Heiser
R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Project Geologist
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
4~~- Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ai ros, . . , ,- ..... A A ..... """' /,-. ,- """'r'\ r'\-, 7420 TRADE STREET• SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1
II. SITE DESCRIPTION 3
III. FIELD INVESTIGATION 4
IV. FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION 5
V. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 8
VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 12
VII. PRELIMINARY BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSES 16
VIII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 17
IX. GROUNDWATER 24
X. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27
XI. GRADING NOTES 46
XII. LIMITATIONS 46

REFERENCES

FIGURES
I. Vicinity Map
II. Plot Plan
IIIa-g. Exploratory Boring & Excavation Logs
IVa-d. Laboratory Test Results
V. Geologic Map and Legend
VI. Geologic Cross Section

APPENDICES
A. Unified Soil Classification System
B. USGS Design Maps Summary Report
C. Slope Stability Analysis
D. Coastal Hazard Report (Geosoils, Inc.)

REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC

RECONNAISSANCE
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions
141 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
JOB NO. 17-11545
The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project.

I. PROJECT SUMMARY
It is our understanding, based on communications with you, that the existing twostory, single-family residence will undergo an extensive remodel with new additions, and associated improvements. The new residential additions are to be constructed of standard-type building materials utilizing a conventional foundation system and a slab on-grade.

Construction plans for development of the site have not been provided to us during the preparation of this report, however, when completed they should be made available for our review. The scope of work we performed is briefly outlined as follows:

1. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils in the area of the proposed construction, in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

2. Make note of any landslides, faults or significant geologic features that may affect the development of the site.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 2

3. Evaluation of existing coastal bluff stability as it relates to the proposed

construction.

4. Recommend site soil preparation procedures.

5. Recommend the allowable bearing pressures for the existing medium dense to very dense formational soils and properly compacted fills.

6. Evaluate the settlement potential of the existing formational soils or proposed properly compacted fills under the new structural loads.

7. Recommend preliminary foundation design information, including active and passive earth pressures to be utilized in design of proposed retaining walls, basement walls and foundation structures.

Our subsurface investigation revealed that the lot is underlain at shallow depth by medium dense to dense silty and clayey sand materials identified as Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6). The surficial fill soils consist of approximately 1 to 2 feet of variable density (loose to medium dense), light reddish-brown silty sand. It is recommended that the fill soils and any loose native soils be removed and recompacted as part of site preparation prior to the addition of any new fill or structural improvements.

All foundations for the proposed additions should be founded into the underlying medium dense to dense native materials or properly compacted fill soils. In proposed secondary improvement areas, all existing fill soils will require removal and recompaction prior to placement of new fill or improvements.

The existing coastal bluff is considered stable in its current configuration and will not be affected by the proposed new development.
ii
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 3

II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is known as Assessor’s Parcel No. 263-323-06-00, Lot 4 in Block 23, according to Recorded Map 1749, in the City of Solana Beach, County of San Diego, State of California. The roughly rectangular-shaped site, consisting of approximately 5,700 square feet, is located at 141 Pacific Avenue in the City of Solana Beach (for site location, refer to the Vicinity Map, Figure No. I). The property is bounded to the northwest and southeast by similar residential properties at the approximate same elevation as the subject property; to the northeast by Pacific Avenue approximately 6 feet lower in elevation; and to the southwest by a westerly descending ocean bluff (sea cliff) and the Pacific Ocean (for site plan, refer to Figure No. II).

The existing structure on the lot consists of a single-family, two-story residence with attached garage, asphalt driveway, and concrete walkways and decks. Access to the lot is provided by a driveway along the northeast side of the property from Pacific Avenue. Property line walls form the northwest and southeast boundaries of the property.

The property consists of a gently sloping building pad at the top of a coastal bluff.

The approximately 80-foot-high bluff descends to the beach and the Pacific Ocean.

The building pad is at approximate elevations of 86 feet above mean sea level (MSL).

Elevations across the property range from approximately 82 feet above (MSL) along the southwest and northeast property lines and approximately 86 feet above (MSL) at the building pad. The base of the bluff is at approximately 6 feet above mean sea level.

Information concerning approximate elevations across the site was obtained from topographic information included on the site plan prepared by Sowards & Brown Engineering, dated July 6, 2017.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 4

III. FIELD INVESTIGATION
One exploratory boring and three exploratory handpits were placed around the perimeter of the existing residence and in areas near where the proposed improvements are to be located. The excavations were placed where access and soil conditions allowed (for exploratory boring and handpit locations, refer to Figure No.

II). The exploratory handpits were excavated to depths ranging from 2 to 3 feet in order to obtain representative soil samples and to define a soil profile across the lot.

The exploratory boring was advanced to a depth of 78 feet to evaluate the subsurface soils that comprise the coastal bluff.

The soils encountered in the boring and excavations were logged by our field representative and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Exploratory boring and handpit logs have been prepared on the basis of our observations and laboratory testing. The results have been summarized on Figure Nos. III and IV. The predominant soils have been classified in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A).

IV. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS & SOIL INFORMATION
A. Field Tests
Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the borings by using a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. by 1⅜-inch I.D. sampler tube a distance of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches was recorded for use in evaluation of the soil consistency. The following chart provides an in-house correlation between the number of blows and the consistency of the soil for the Standard Penetration Test and the 3-inch O.D. (“Cal”) sampler. Test results are summarized on Figure No. III.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 5

Soil
Density
Designation
2-inch O.D.

Sampler
Blows/Foot
3-inch O.D.

Sampler
Blows/Foot
Sand and
Non-plastic
Silt
Very loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very Dense
0-4
5-10
11-30
31-50
Over 50
0-7
8-20
21-53
54-98
Over 98
Clay and
Plastic Silt
Very soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Hard
0-2
3-4
5-8
9-15
15-30
31-60
Over 60
0-2
3-4
5-9
10-18
19-45
46-90
Over 90
Bulk (disturbed) and relatively undisturbed (ring) samples were retrieved, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing.

In general, the tests performed in the field included the Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings (ASTM D1452), Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1586), and Standard Practice for Ring-lined Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM D3550).

B. Laboratory Tests
Laboratory tests were performed on relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of the soils encountered in order to evaluate their index, strength, expansion, and compressibility properties. Test results are summarized on Figure Nos. III and IV.

The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils:

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 6

1. Moisture Content (ASTM D2216-05)

2. Standard Test Method for Density of Soil In-place by the Drive Cylinder Method (ASTM D2937-10)

3. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics (ASTM D1557-12)

4. Determination of Percentage of Particles Smaller than No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D1140-14)

5. Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils under Consolidated Drained Conditions (ASTM D3080)
Moisture content measurements were performed to establish the in situ moisture of samples retrieved from the exploratory borings. Moisture content and density measurements were performed by ASTM methods D2216 and D2937. These density tests help to establish the in situ moisture and density of samples retrieved from the exploratory boring.

Laboratory compaction tests establish the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the tested soils and are also used to aid in evaluating the strength characteristics of the soils. The test results are presented on the boring log at the appropriate sample depths.

The particle size smaller than a No. 200 sieve analysis aids in classifying the tested soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and provides qualitative information related to engineering characteristics such as expansion potential, permeability, and shear strength. The test results are presented on the boring log at the appropriate sample depths.

Three direct shear tests (ASTM D3080) were performed on in-place soil samples in order to evaluate strength characteristics of the Old Paralic Deposits and Torrey Sandstone formational materials. The shear tests were performed with a constant strain rate direct shear machine. The specimens tested were saturated and then sheared under various normal loads.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 7

Based on the field and laboratory test data, our observations of the primary soil types on the project, and our previous experience with laboratory testing of similar soils, our Geotechnical Engineer has assigned values for friction angle, coefficient of friction, and cohesion for those soils which will have significant lateral support or load bearing functions on the project. These values have been utilized in determining the recommended bearing value as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, slope stability analyses, etc.

The expansion potential of soils is determined, when necessary, utilizing the Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of Soils. In accordance with the Standard (Table

5.3), potentially expansive soils are classified as follows:

Expansion Index Potential Expansion
0 to 20 Very low
21 to 50 Low
51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
Above 130 Very high
Based on our experience with similar soils, it is our opinion that the on-site fill and formational soils possess a very low to low expansion potential (EI less than 50).

V. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
San Diego County has been divided into three major geomorphic provinces: the Coastal Plain, Peninsular Ranges and Salton Trough. The Coastal Plain exists west of the Peninsular Ranges. The Salton Trough is east of the Peninsular Ranges. These divisions are the result of the basic geologic distinctions between the areas. Mesozoic metavolcanic, metasedimetary and plutonic rocks predominate in the Peninsular Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 8
Ranges with primarily Cenozoic sedimentary ro

cks to the west and east of this central
mountain range (Demere, 1997).

In the Coastal Plain region, where the subject property is located, the “basement” consists of Mesozoic crystalline rocks. Basement rocks are also exposed as high relief areas (e.g., Black Mountain northeast of the subject property and Cowles Mountain near the San Carlos area of San Diego). Younger Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments lap up against these older features. The Cretaceous sediments form the local basement rocks on the Point Loma area. These sediments form a “layer cake” sequence of marine and non-marine sedimentary rock units, with some formations up to 140 million years old. Faulting related to the La Nacion and Rose Canyon Fault zones has broken up this sequence into a number of distinct fault blocks in the southwestern part of the county. Northwestern portions of the county are relatively undeformed by faulting (Demere, 1997).

The Peninsular Ranges form the granitic spine of San Diego County. These rocks are primarily plutonic, forming at depth beneath the earth’s crust 140 to 90 million years ago as the result of the subduction of an oceanic crustal plate beneath the North American continent. These rocks formed the much larger Southern California batholith. Metamorphism associated with the intrusion of these great granitic masses affected the much older sediments that existed near the surface over that period of time. These metasedimentary rocks remain as roof pendants of marble, schist, slate, quartzite and gneiss throughout the Peninsular Ranges. Locally, Miocene-age volcanic rocks and flows have also accumulated within these mountains (e.g., Jacumba Valley). Regional tectonic forces and erosion over time have uplifted and unroofed these granitic rocks to expose them at the surface (Demere, 1997). ii Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 9
The Salton Trough is the northerly extension

of the Gulf of California. This zone is
undergoing active deformation related to faulting along the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones, which are part of the major regional tectonic feature in the southwestern portion of California, the San Andreas Fault Zone. Translational movement along these fault zones has resulted in crustal rifting and subsidence. The Salton Trough, also referred to as the Colorado Desert, has been filled with sediments to depth of approximately 5 miles since the movement began in the early Miocene, 24 million years ago. The source of these sediments has been the local mountains as well as the ancestral and modern Colorado River (Demere, 1997).

As indicated previously, the San Diego area is part of a seismically active region of California. It is on the eastern boundary of the Southern California Continental Borderland, part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This region is part of a broad tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates. The actual plate boundary is characterized by a complex system of active, major, rightlateral strike-slip faults, trending northwest/southeast. This fault system extends eastward to the San Andreas Fault (approximately 70 miles from San Diego) and westward to the San Clemente Fault (approximately 50 miles off-shore from San Diego) (Berger and Schug, 1991).

During recent history, the San Diego County area has been relatively quiet seismically. No fault ruptures or major earthquakes have been experienced in historic time within the San Diego area. Since earthquakes have been recorded by instruments (since the 1930s), the San Diego area has experienced scattered seismic events with Richter magnitudes (M) generally less than M4.0. During June 1985, a series of small earthquakes occurred beneath San Diego Bay, three of which had recorded magnitudes of M4.0 to M4.2. In addition, the Oceanside earthquake of July 13, 1986, located approximately 26 miles offshore of the City of Oceanside, had a magnitude of M5.3 (Hauksson and Jones, 1988). On June 15, 2004, a M5.3 ii Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 10
earthquake occurred approximately 45 miles southwest of downtown San Diego (26 miles west of Rosarito, Mexico). Although this earthquake was widely felt, no significant damage was reported.

On Sunday, April 4, 2010, a large earthquake occurred in Baja California, Mexico. It was widely felt throughout the southwest including Phoenix, Arizona and San Diego in California. This M7.2 event, the Sierra

El Mayor earthquake, occurred in northern
Baja California approximately 40 miles south of the Mexico-USA border at shallow depth along the principal plate boundary between the North American and Pacific plates. According to the U. S. Geological Survey this is an area with a high level of historical seismicity, and it has recently also been seismically active, though this is the largest event to strike in this area since 1892. The April 4, 2010, earthquake appears to have been larger than the M6.9 earthquake in 1940 or any of the early 20th century events (e.g., 1915 and 1934) in this region of northern Baja California.

The event caused widespread damage to structures, closure of businesses, government offices and schools, power outages, displacement of people from their homes and injuries in the nearby major metropolitan areas of Mexicali in Mexico and Calexico in southern California. Preliminary estimates of the cost of the damage range to $100 million.

This event's aftershock zone extends significantly to the northwest, overlapping with the portion of the fault system that is thought to have ruptured in 1892. Some structures in the San Diego area experienced minor damage and there were some injuries. Ground motions for the April 4, 2010, main event, recorded at stations in San Diego and reported by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP), ranged up to 0.058g. Aftershocks from this event continue to the date of this report along the trend northwest of the original event, including within San Diego County, closer to the San Diego metropolitan area. There have been hundreds of these earthquakes including events up to M5.7.
ii
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 11

In California, major earthquakes can generally be correlated with movement on active faults. As defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Hart, E.W., 1980), an "active" fault is one that has had ground surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). Additionally, faults along which major historical earthquakes have occurred (about the last 210 years in California) are also considered to be active (Association of Engineering Geologist, 1973). The California Division of Mines and Geology defines a "potentially active" fault as one that has had ground surface displacement during Quaternary time, that is, between 11,000 and

1.6 million years (Hart, E.W., 1980).

VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
A. Stratigraphy
Our reconnaissance, field work, and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports indicate that dense, Tertiary-age Torrey sandstone (Tt) formational soils underlie the entire site at depth and are overlain by Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6).

The soil profile at the site includes up to 2 feet of surficial fill soils overlying the native soils. Refer to the boring and excavation logs, Figure Nos. IIIa-g. Figure No. V presents a plan view geologic map of the general area of the site.

Fill Soils (Qaf): The lot is overlain by approximately 1 to 2 feet of surficial fill soils as encountered in the boring and in all of the handpit locations. The fill soils consist of grayish-brown to reddish brown, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand. The fill soils are generally dry to slightly moist, of variable density (loose to medium dense) and low expansion potential, and are not suitable in their current condition for support of new loads from structures or additional fill. Refer to Figure Nos. III and IV for details.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 12

Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6): Old Paralic deposits were encountered below the fill.

The thickness of these materials is approximately 56 feet thick as encountered in our exploratory boring. The Old Paralic Deposits consist of brown, light grayish-brown, and reddish-brown, silty and clayey, fine- to medium-grained sand. The Old Paralic Deposits were also observed in the bluff face below the lot and overlying the Torrey (Tt). They are generally medium dense to dense, slightly moist to moist, and are considered suitable for support of loads from structures or additional fill. Refer to Figure Nos. III and IV for details.

Torrey Sandstone (Tt): Torrey Sandstone formational soils were encountered in our exploratory boring at a depth of 56 feet and also observed in the bluff face below the property. The formational materials observed in the bluff face below the property consists of well indurated, massively bedded, fine to medium grained sandstone.

They are generally very dense, slightly moist, light yellowish brown and are considered to have good bearing strength characteristics. Refer to Figure Nos. III and IV for details.

B. Structure
The Tertiary-age Torrey Sandstone (Tt) underlies the site. The Torrey Sandstone in this area strikes approximately north 35 degrees west and dips approximately 2 degrees to the northeast as depicted approximately 1 mile south of the property on the geologic map (Kennedy and Tan, 2008; see Figure No. V). No apparent geologic structure was observed in the massively bedded Torrey Sandstone immediately below the subject property.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 13

C. Bluff Observations
The bluff along the southwest side of the subject property extends approximately 80 feet down to the beach. The exposed bedrock configuration ranges from steeply sloping surfaces in the upper terrace deposits, to near-vertical surfaces to approximately 24 feet in height, in the lower Torrey Sandstone. No out of slope dip components were noted that would adversely affect slope stability.

Although it appears unlikely that bluff recession due to wave erosion would affect the primary rear yard improvements during their useful economic life (considered 75 years), recession of the bluff into the southwestern landscape area between the bluff edge and the rear patio should be expected.

D. Bluff Stability and Recession Mechanisms
As always with proposed coastal bluff top construction, bluff face geologic stability as well as bluff recession mechanisms and rates are significant factors to be considered in site development. Evaluations must be made of inherent strengths of the Torrey Sandstone and Old Paralic deposits (Marine terrace deposits), as well as their highly variable response to coastal erosion processes depending on lithologic variations and degrees of faulting and jointing.

The lower 24 feet of the bluff face below the subject property stands essentially vertical or sub-vertical due to the erosion resistant nature of the well indurated Torrey Sandstone. At some locations, the lower bluff rim overhangs the lower surfaces by 1 to 2 feet. The Old Paralic deposits are above the line of direct wave attack and a different combination of factors influence their erosion. Upper portions of coastal bluffs are exposed to precipitation, wind, pedestrian erosion, variations in landscape, landscape maintenance, and other activities.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 14
Coastal bluff retreat is a naturally occurring process that is affected by man’s action.

Severe erosion is episodic in nature and is mostly dependent upon the intensity of storms and combined high tide

s, and it is possible that several feet of retreat could occur during severe weather conditions. There may also be periods during the future when erosion along the coast will be insignificant.

We have recalculated the 75-year erosion rate based on current information for historical erosion rates in this area of Solana Beach. This included reviews of historical aerial photographs, physical surveys, and photogrammetry. This method conforms to the “Guidelines for establishing long-term retreat rates” provided in Johnsson (2005), which states “historic data currently are our best indicators of future erosion at any given site.” We have calculated a measured historical erosion rate of 2.88 inches per year (or 0.24 feet per year) for the subject property. This is slightly greater than the 2.46 inches per year (0.20 feet per year) for Solana Beach bluff recession between 1932 and 1994, as reported by Benumof and Griggs (Journal of American Shore and Beach Association, Vol. 67, No. 4, October 1999), and the Benumof and Griggs study was recommended for use in evaluation of North County bluff recession rates by Mr. Mark Johnsson of the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

It is our opinion that the 0.40 feet per year (or 30 feet in 75 years) erosion rate utilized by the City of Solana Beach, if it does not include sea level rise, is too conservative when added to the bluff stability 1.5 safety factor line currently required by the City of Solana Beach. A bluff retreat based on calculations using a 0.24 feet per year rate would be 18 feet in 75 years. This does not include adjustments for anticipated rise in sea level.
ii
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 15

Based on information included in a report prepared for the subject site by Geosoils, Inc., dated September 15, 2017 (refer to Appendix D of this report), we have recalculated the 75-year erosion rate to include sea level rise (SLR). Review of the 2012 NRC Report (National Research Council) indicates the CCC SLR estimate over the project 75-year design life to the year 2092 is between 1.8 feet and 3.3 feet.

This is the estimated sea level rise range for the proposed project.

The retreat rate from 1932 to 2014 is calculated to be 0.24 ft/yr. The retreat rate in the year 2100 with 125 cm SLR (COSMOS) is estimated to be 0.58 ft/yr. To assign an average retreat rate from today to the year 2092, we conservatively recommend the average of the 0.24 ft/yr historic rate and the 0.58 ft/yr estimated 2100 rate or

0.41 ft/yr. Over the 75-year life this translates to a total bluff retreat of about 30.75 feet.

This analysis uses site-specific calculated historical bluff retreat, justified and probable SLR over the next 75 years, and scientifically reviewed methodology to calculate the potential annualized retreat rate including SLR over the project life.

VII. PRELIMINARY BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSES
Slope stability analysis was performed along one cross section of the property and coastal bluff in the area where improvements are proposed. The cross section is included herein as Figure No. VI. Given the site is underlain at depth by medium dense to dense formational materials and medium dense, native Old Paralic Deposits, and the existing coastal bluffs below the property do not appear to have failed, it is our opinion that sufficient gross stability exists in the building pad areas.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 16

As part of geotechnical investigations we have collected similar soil samples of the coastal bluff materials (i.e., the Old Paralic Deposits and Torrey Sandstone) that exist at the site. We used the soil classification and standard penetration blow counts to assign shear strength values to the soils. We assigned values of shear strength for overlying fill soils, Old Paralic Deposits soils and the underlying Torrey Sandstone (35 degrees and 550 psf for the Old Paralic Deposits, and 38 degrees and 850 psf for the Torrey Sandstone formational materials).

Slope stability analysis was performed utilizing a computer program, SLIDE, which analyzes the factor of safety against shear stresses (see Appendix C). Potential shear failure surfaces were analyzed with the assigned soil shear strength values. Shear failure analyses were run along the cross section depicted on Figure No. VI. All analyzed slide surfaces yielded a factor of safety of at least 1.5. The minimum acceptable factor of safety against soil shear deep failure is 1.5. Based on our test results, the coastal bluff at the site is considered stable against deep-seated failures.

The minimum bluff top setback for new construction is confirmed to be 25 feet.

Shallow slope failure analysis was also performed and results indicate a factor of safety higher than 1.5. The factor of safety for seismic slope stability analysis is also higher than 1.15, the minimum acceptable factor of safety for this type of analysis.

The combined 75 year erosion rate setback and slope stability setback is calculated to be 47 feet.

VIII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The following is a discussion of the geologic conditions and hazards common to this area of the City of Solana Beach, as well as project-specific geologic information relating to development of the subject property.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 17

A. Local and Regional Faults
Rose Canyon Fault: The Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Mount Soledad and Rose Canyon Faults), located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the subject site, is mapped trending north-south from Oceanside to downtown San Diego, from where it appears to head southward into San Diego Bay, through Coronado and offshore. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to be a complex zone of onshore and offshore, en echelon strike slip, oblique reverse, and oblique normal faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be capable of causing a M7.2 earthquake per the California Geologic Survey (2002) and considered microseismically active, although no significant recent earthquake is known to have occurred on the fault.

Investigative work on faults that are part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone at the Police Administration and Technical Center in downtown San Diego, at the SDG&E facility in Rose Canyon, and within San Diego Bay and elsewhere within downtown San Diego, has encountered offsets in Holocene (geologically recent) sediments. These findings confirm Holocene displacement on the Rose Canyon Fault, which was designated an “active” fault in November 1991 (California Division of Mines and Geology -- Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, 1999).

Newport-Inglewood Fault: The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is located approximately 14 miles northwest of the site. A significant earthquake (M6.4) occurred along this fault on March 10, 1933. Since then no additional significant events have occurred. The fault is believed to have a slip rate of approximately 0.6 mm/yr with an unknown recurrence interval. This fault is believed capable of producing an earthquake of M6.0 to M7.4 (SCEC, 2004).

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 18

Coronado Bank Fault: The Coronado Bank Fault is located approximately 16.4 miles southwest of the site. Evidence for this fault is based upon geophysical data (acoustic profiles) and the general alignment of epicenters of recorded seismic activity (Greene, 1979). The Oceanside earthquake of M5.3, recorded July 13, 1986, is known to have been centered on the fault or within the Coronado Bank Fault Zone. Although this fault is considered active, due to the seismicity within the fault zone, it is significantly less active seismically than the Elsinore Fault (Hileman, 1973). It is postulated that the Coronado Bank Fault is capable of generating a M7.6 earthquake and is of great interest due to its close proximity to the greater San Diego metropolitan area.

Elsinore Fault: The Elsinore Fault is located approximately 30 miles east and northeast of the site. The fault extends approximately 200 km (125 miles) from the Mexican border to the northern end of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Elsinore Fault zone is a 1- to 4-mile-wide, northwest-southeast-trending zone of discontinuous and en echelon faults extending through portions of Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Individual faults within the Elsinore Fault Zone range from less than 1 mile to 16 miles in length. The trend, length and geomorphic expression of the Elsinore Fault Zone identify it as being a part of the highly active San Andreas Fault system.

Like the other faults in the San Andreas system, the Elsinore Fault is a transverse fault showing predominantly right-lateral movement. According to Hart, et al. (1979), this movement averages less than 1 centimeter per year. Along most of its length, the Elsinore Fault Zone is marked by a bold topographic expression consisting of linearly aligned ridges, swales and hallows. Faulted Holocene alluvial deposits (believed to be less than 11,000 years old) found along several segments of the fault zone suggest that at least part of the zone is currently active.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 19

Although the Elsinore Fault Zone belongs to the San Andreas set of active, northwesttrending, right-slip faults in the southern California area (Crowell, 1962), it has not been the site of a major earthquake in historic time, other than a M6.0 earthquake near the town of Elsinore in 1910 (Richter, 1958; Toppozada and Parke, 1982).

However, based on length and evidence of late-Pleistocene or Holocene displacement, Greensfelder (1974) has estimated that the Elsinore Fault Zone is reasonably capable of generating an earthquake as large as M7.5. Study and logging of exposures in trenches placed in Glen Ivy Marsh across the Glen Ivy North Fault (a strand of the Elsinore Fault Zone between Corona and Lake Elsinore), suggest a maximum earthquake recurrence interval of 300 years, and when combined with previous estimates of the long-term horizontal slip rate of 0.8 to 7.0 mm/year, suggest typical earthquakes of M6.0 to M7.0 (Rockwell, 1985). More recently, the California Geologic Survey (2002) considers the Elsinore Fault capable of producing an earthquake of M6.8 to M7.1.

San Jacinto Fault: The San Jacinto Fault is located 53 miles to the northeast of the site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone consists of a series of closely spaced faults, including the Coyote Creek Fault, that form the western margin of the San Jacinto Mountains.

The fault zone extends from its junction with the San Andreas Fault in San Bernardino, southeasterly toward the Brawley area, where it continues south of the international border as the Imperial Transform Fault (Earth Consultants International [ECI], 2009).

The San Jacinto Fault zone has a high level of historical seismic activity, with at least 10 damaging earthquakes (M6.0 to M7.0) having occurred on this fault zone between 1890 and 1986. Earthquakes on the San Jacinto Fault in 1899 and 1918 caused fatalities in the Riverside County area. Offset across this fault is predominantly rightlateral, similar to the San Andreas Fault, although some investigators have suggested that dip-slip motion contributes up to 10% of the net slip (ECI, 2009).

Mi
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 20
The segments of the San Jacinto Fault that are of most concern to major metropolitan areas are the San Bernardino, San Jacinto Valley and Anza segments. Fault slip rates on the various segments of the San Jacinto

are less well constrained than for the San
Andreas Fault, but the available data suggest slip rates of 12 ±6 mm/yr for the northern segments of the fault, and slip rates of 4 ±2 mm/yr for the southern segments. For large ground-rupturing earthquakes on the San Jacinto fault, various investigators have suggested a recurrence interval of 150 to 300 years. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 2008) has estimated that there is a 31 percent probability that an earthquake of M6.7 or greater will occur within 30 years on this fault. Maximum credible earthquakes of M6.7, M6.9 and M7.2 are expected on the San Bernardino, San Jacinto Valley and Anza segments, respectively, capable of generating peak horizontal ground accelerations of 0.48 to 0.53 g in the County of Riverside, (ECI, 2009). A M5.4 earthquake occurred on the San Jacinto Fault on July 7, 2010.

The United States Geological Survey has issued the following statements with respect to the recent seismic activity on southern California faults:

The San Jacinto fault, along with the Elsinore, San Andreas, and other faults, is part of the plate boundary that accommodates about 2 inches/year of motion as the Pacific plate moves northwest relative to the North American plate. The largest recent earthquake on the San Jacinto fault, near this location, the M6.5 1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake April 8, 1968, occurred about 25 miles southeast of the July 7, 2010, M5.4 earthquake.

This M5.4 earthquake follows the April 4, 2010, Easter Sunday, M7.2 earthquake, located about 125 miles to the south, well south of the US Mexico international border. A M4.9 earthquake occurred in the same area on June 12, 2010, at 8:08 pm (Pacific Time). Thus, this section of the San Jacinto fault remains active. ii
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 21

Seismologists are watching two major earthquake faults in southern California. The San Jacinto fault, the most active earthquake fault in southern California, extends for more than 100 miles from the international border into San Bernardino and Riverside, a major metropolitan area often called the Inland Empire. The Elsinore fault is more than 110 miles long, and extends into the Orange County and Los Angeles area as the Whittier fault. The Elsinore fault is capable of a major earthquake that would significantly affect the large metropolitan areas of southern California. The Elsinore fault has not hosted a major earthquake in more than 100 years. The occurrence of these earthquakes along the San Jacinto fault and continued aftershocks demonstrates that the earthquake activity in the region remains at an elevated level.

The San Jacinto fault is known as the most active earthquake fault in southern California. Caltech and USGS seismologist continue to monitor the ongoing earthquake activity using the Caltech/USGS Southern California Seismic Network and a GPS network of more than 100 stations.

B. Other Geologic Hazards
Ground Rupture: Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established fault and may result in displacement of the ground surface. For ground rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds M5.0. If a M5.0 earthquake were to take place on a local fault, an estimated surface-rupture length 1 mile long could be expected (Greensfelder, 1974). Our investigation indicates that the subject site is not directly on a known fault trace and, therefore, the risk of ground rupture is remote.

Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically induced ground shaking is a detrimental effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego County. The intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 22

distance from the earthquake, and the seismic response characteristics of underlying soils and geologic units. Earthquakes of M5.0 or greater are generally associated with notable to significant damage. It is our opinion that the most serious damage to the site would be caused by a large earthquake originating on a nearby strand of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Although the chance of such an event is remote, it could occur within the useful life of the structure.

Landslides: Based upon our geologic reconnaissance, review of the geologic map (Kennedy and Tan, 2008), review of the aerial photographs (5-2-53, AXN-8M-80 and 81), there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site.

Slope Stability: It is our opinion slopes on the site possess a factor of safety of 1.5 or higher against gross shear and/or shallow failure (1.15 or higher when including seismic loading).

Liquefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can be a major cause of damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process by which soils are transformed into a viscous fluid that will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs primarily in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are sufficiently shaken by an earthquake.

On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation materials due to seismic shaking is considered to be low due to the medium dense to dense nature of the natural-ground material and the lack of a shallow static groundwater surface under the site. The site does not have a potential for soil strength loss to occur due to a seismic event.

Tsunami: Based upon our review of the “Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning,” Del Mar Quadrangle, prepared by the California Geologic Survey, dated June 1, 2009, the site is not mapped within the tsunami inundation line. The risk of Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 23

a tsunami affecting the site is considered low to moderate as the site is situated at an elevation of approximately 86 feet above mean sea level and in close distance to an exposed beach. In general, the orientation of the southern California coastline and the bathymetry of the offshore southern California borderland have, during historical times, combined to protect the shoreline from any large magnitude tsunami height increases, as shown by records of tsunami occurrences that have been observed and/or recorded along the southern California shoreline since 1810 (Lander et al., 1993). For this segment of the California coastline (south of Santa Monica), there is no evidence of any high magnitude tsunamis generated during the last 200 years by large-scale regional sea floor movements (Gayman, 1998).

Summary: It is our opinion, based upon a review of the available maps and our site investigation, that the site is underlain by stable formational materials, and is suited for the proposed structural additions and associated improvements. It is our opinion that a known "active" fault presents the greatest seismic risk to the subject site during the lifetime of the proposed residence and additions. To date, the nearest known "active" faults to the subject site are the northwest-trending Rose Canyon Fault, Newport-Inglewood, Coronado Bank Fault and the Elsinore Fault. No significant geologic hazards are known to exist on the site that would prevent the proposed construction. Refer to Section X of this report for seismic design criteria.

IX. GROUNDWATER
No groundwater was encountered during the course of our field investigation and we do not anticipate significant groundwater problems to develop in the future, if the property is developed as proposed and proper drainage is implemented and maintained.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 24
It should be kept in mind that any required grading operations will change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be lo

calized and cosmetic in nature, if good
positive drainage is implemented, as recommended in this report, during and at the completion of construction.

On properties such as the subject site where formational materials exist at relatively shallow depths, even normal landscape irrigation practices or periods of extended rainfall can result in shallow “perched” water conditions. The perching (shallow depth) accumulation of water on a low permeability surface can result in areas of persistent wetting and drowning of lawns, plants and trees. Resolution of such conditions, should they occur, may require site-specific design and construction of subdrain and shallow “wick” drain dewatering systems.

Subsurface drainage with a properly designed and constructed subdrain system will be required along with continuous back drainage behind any proposed lower-level basement walls, property line retaining walls, or any perimeter stem walls for raisedwood floors where the outside grades are higher than the crawl space grades.

Furthermore, crawl spaces should be provided with the proper cross-ventilation to help reduce the potential for moisture-related problems.

It must be understood that unless discovered during initial site exploration or encountered during site grading operations, it is extremely difficult to predict if or where perched or true groundwater conditions may appear in the future. When site fill or formational soils are fine-grained and of low permeability, water problems may not become apparent for extended periods of time.
ii
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 25

Water conditions, where suspected or encountered during grading operations, should be evaluated and remedied by the project civil and geotechnical consultants. The project developer and property owner, however, must realize that post-construction appearances of groundwater may have to be dealt with on a site-specific basis.

X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the practical field investigation conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with soil conditions in the City of Solana Beach.

Our geotechnical investigation revealed that the property is underlain at shallow depth by medium dense clayey and silty sand materials identified as Old Paralic Deposits (Qop6) overlain by approximately 1 to 2 feet of variable density, silty sand fill soils. In their present condition, these fill soils will not provide a stable base for structure additions and improvements. As such, we recommend that these soils be removed and recompacted as part of site preparation prior to the addition of any new fill or structural improvements. The native materials have good bearing strength characteristics and are suitable for support of the proposed structural loads.

All foundations should be founded either entirely into the underlying medium dense native materials or entirely in properly compacted fill soils. In proposed secondary improvement areas, all existing fill soils will require removal, moisture conditioning, and recompaction prior to placement of new fill or improvements. New structures may be founded into dense formational soils, and new floors may be designed to span between those foundations.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 26

The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. being retained to review the final plans and specifications as they are developed and to observe the site earthwork and installation of foundations. Accordingly, we recommend that the following paragraph be included on the grading and foundation plans for the project:

If the geotechnical consultant of record is changed for the project, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed in writing to accept the responsibility within their area of technical competence for approval upon completion of the work. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to notify the governing agency in writing of such change prior to the commencement or recommencement of grading and/or foundation installation work.

A. Seismic Design Criteria

1. Seismic Design Criteria: Site-specific seismic design criteria for the proposed residence are presented in the following table in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC, which incorporates by reference ASCE 7-10 for seismic design. We have determined the mapped spectral acceleration values for the site, based on a latitude of 32.9923 degrees and longitude of -117.2746 degrees, utilizing a tool provided by the USGS, which provides a solution for ASCE 7-10 (Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC) utilizing digitized files for the Spectral Acceleration maps. Based on our experience with similar soil conditions, we have assigned a Site Soil Classification of D. Refer to the “USGS Design Maps Summary Report” presented as Appendix B.

TABLE I
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values and Design Parameters Ss S1 Fa Fv Sms Sm1 Sds Sd1

1.208g 0.469g 1.017 1.531 1.228g 0.718g 0.819g 0.479g I I Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 27

B. Preparation of Soils for Site Development

2. Clearing and Stripping: The existing improvements and vegetation observed within the proposed addition areas should be removed prior to the preparation of the building pad and areas of associated improvements. This includes any roots from existing trees and shrubbery. Holes resulting from the removal of root systems or other buried foundations, debris or obstructions that extend below the planned grades should be cleared and backfilled with properly compacted fill.

3. Treatment of Existing Fill Soils and/or Loose Surficial Soils: In order to provide suitable foundation support for the proposed additions and associated improvements, we recommend that all existing fill soils that remain after the necessary demolition and site excavations have been made be removed and recompacted. The recompaction work should consist of (a) removing these soils down to native medium dense materials; (b) scarifying, moisture conditioning, and compacting the exposed natural subgrade soils; and (c) cleaning and replacing the removed material as compacted structural fill.

Before any soils are processed our field representative should evaluate the soils at the bottom of the excavation.

The depth required to remove the fill soils is anticipated to be approximately 1 to 2 feet but should be confirmed by our representatives during the excavation work based on their examination of the soils being exposed. The lateral extent of the excavation and recompaction should be at least 5 feet beyond the edge of the perimeter foundations of the residential structure and any areas to receive exterior improvements where feasible.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 28

Any unsuitable materials (such as oversize rubble, highly expansive clayey soils, and/or organic matter) should be selectively removed as indicated by our representative and disposed of off-site or be properly moisture conditioned and compacted.

Any rigid improvements founded on the existing variable density surface soils can be expected to undergo movement and possible damage. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. takes no responsibility for the performance of any improvements built on loose natural soils or inadequately compacted fills. Any exterior area to receive concrete improvements should be verified for compaction and moisture within 48 hours prior to concrete placement or during the fill placement if the thickness of fill exceeds 1 foot.

4. Subgrade Preparation: After the site has been cleared, stripped, and the required excavations made, the exposed subgrade soils in areas to receive fill and/or building improvements should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to the requirements for structural fill.

Moisture content should be maintained by periodical sprinkling until within 48 hours prior to concrete placement.

5. Expansive Soil Conditions: We do not anticipate that significant quantities of medium or highly expansive clay soils will be encountered during grading.

Should such soils be encountered and used as fill, however, they should be moisture conditioned to at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content, compacted to 88 to 92 percent, and placed outside building areas. Soils of medium or greater expansion potential should not be used as retaining wall backfill soils.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 29

6. Material for Fill: Existing on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are, in general, suitable for use as fill. Any required imported fill material should be a low-expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less per ASTM D4829-11). In addition, both imported and existing onsite materials for use as fill should not contain rocks or lumps more than 3 inches in greatest dimension. All materials for use as fill should be approved by our representative prior to importing to the site.

7. Fill Compaction: All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent based upon ASTM D1557-12. Fill material should be spread and compacted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fill should be brought to a moisture content that will permit proper compaction by either: (1) aerating and drying the fill if it is too wet, or (2) moistening the fill with water if it is too dry. Each lift should be thoroughly mixed before compaction to ensure a uniform distribution of moisture.

No uncontrolled fill soils should remain after completion of the site work. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils, the loose fill soils should be removed and/or recompacted prior to completion of the grading operation.

8. Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill: Utility trenches and retaining walls should preferably be backfilled with compacted fill; gravel is also a suitable backfill material but should be used only if space constraints will not allow the use of compaction equipment. Gravel can also be used as backfill around perforated subdrains. Backfill material should be placed in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent by mechanical means.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 30

Our experience has shown that even shallow, narrow trenches (such as for irrigation and electrical lines) that are not properly compacted can result in problems, particularly with respect to shallow groundwater accumulation and migration.

Backfill soils placed behind retaining walls should be installed as early as the retaining walls are capable of supporting lateral loads. Backfill soils behind retaining walls should be low expansive, with an Expansion Index equal to or lower than 50.

C. Design Parameters for Proposed Foundations

9. Footings: We recommend that the proposed additions be supported on conventional, individual-spread and/or continuous footing foundations bearing on recompacted fill soils prepared as stated above and/or undisturbed natural material. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade.

If the proposed footings are located closer than 8 feet inside the top or face of slopes, they should be deepened to 1½ feet below a line beginning at a point 8 feet horizontally inside the slopes and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the slope and into firm soils. Bearing surfaces of footings located adjacent to utility trenches should be situated below an imaginary

1.5:1.0 plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench.

10. Bearing Values: At the recommended depths, footings on compacted fill or native soil may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and live loads and 3,300 psf for all Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 31

loads, including wind or seismic. The footings should, however, have a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches for one-story structures (minimum width of 15 inches for two-story structures). Footing excavations should be evaluated by our representative prior to steel and form placement. If suspended floors are to be used between deepened footings into dense formational soils, our firm can be contacted for additional recommendations.

11. Footing Reinforcement: All continuous footings should contain top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. We recommend that a minimum of two No. 5 top and two No. 5 bottom reinforcing bars be provided in the footings. A minimum clearance of 3 inches should be maintained between steel reinforcement and the bottom or sides of the footing. Isolated square footings should contain, as a minimum, a grid of three No. 4 steel bars on 12-inch centers, both ways. In order for us to offer an opinion as to whether the footings are founded on soils of sufficient load bearing capacity, it is essential that our representative inspect the footing excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.

NOTE: The project Civil/Structural Engineer should review all reinforcing schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum reinforcement to reduce the potential for cracking and separations.

12. Lateral Loads: Lateral load resistance for the structures supported on footing foundations may be developed in friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 is considered applicable. An additional allowable passive resistance equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the foundations Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 32

may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat against the adjacent undisturbed formational materials and/or properly compacted fill materials. These lateral resistance values assume a level surface in front of the footing for a minimum distance of three times the embedment depth of the footing.

13. Settlement: Settlements under building loads are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed residence. For footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding paragraphs, we anticipate that total settlements should not exceed 1 inch and that postconstruction differential angular rotation should be less than 1/240.

D. Concrete Slab-on-grade Criteria

14. Minimum Floor Slab Reinforcement: Based on our experience, we have found that, for various reasons, floor slabs occasionally crack, causing brittle surfaces such as ceramic tiles to become damaged. Therefore, we recommend that all slabs-on-grade contain at least a minimum amount of reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur.

14.1 Interior slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches actual thickness and be reinforced with No. 3 bars on 15-inch centers, both ways, placed at midheight in the slab. The slabs should be underlain by a moisture retardant membrane (i.e., 15-mil StegoWrap) over a 4-inchthick capillary break layer consisting of clean ⅜-inch gravel. Slab subgrade soil should be verified by a Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. representative to have the proper moisture content within 48 hours prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring of concrete. The Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 33

StegoWrap membrane may be placed directly on properly compacted subgrade soils or dense formational soils.

14.2 Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of any floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials.

15. Concrete Isolation Joints: We recommend the project Civil/Structural Engineer incorporate isolation joints and sawcuts to at least one-fourth the thickness of the slab in any floor designs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for and help control floor slab cracking. We recommend that concrete shrinkage joints be spaced no farther than approximately 20 feet apart, and also at re-entrant corners. However, due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete), some cracking of slabs can be expected.

16. Slab Moisture Emission: Although it is not the responsibility of geotechnical engineering firms to provide moisture protection recommendations, as a service to our clients we provide the following discussion and suggested minimum protection criteria. Actual recommendations should be provided by the architect and waterproofing consultants.

Soil moisture vapor can result in damage to moisture-sensitive floors, some floor sealers, or sensitive equipment in direct contact with the floor, in addition to mold and staining on slabs, walls, and carpets.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 34
The common practice in Southern California is to place vapor retarders made

of PVC, or of polyethylene. PVC retarders are made in thickness ranging from 10- to 60-mil. Polyethylene retarders, called visqueen, range from 5- to 10- mil in thickness. These products are no longer considered adequate for moisture protection and can actually deteriorate over time.

Specialty vapor retarding products possess higher tensile strength and are more specifically designed for and intended to retard moisture transmission into and through concrete slabs. The use of such products is highly recommended for reduction of floor slab moisture emission.

The following American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) sections address the issue of moisture transmission into and through concrete slabs: ASTM E1745-97 (2009) Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact Concrete Slabs; ASTM E154-88 (2005) Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth; ASTM E96-95 Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials; ASTM E1643-98 (2009) Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact Under Concrete Slabs; and ACI 302.2R-06 Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials.

Based on the above, we recommend that the vapor barrier consist of a minimum 15-mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditioning (ASTM E1745 Section 7.1 and sub-paragraphs 7.1.1-7.1.5) should be less than 0.01 perms (grains/square foot/hour in Hg) and comply with the ASTM E1745 Class A requirements. Installation of vapor barriers should be in ii Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 35

accordance with ASTM E1643. The basis of design is StegoWrap vapor barrier 15-mil or equivalent placed as previously indicated.

16.1 Common to all acceptable products, vapor retarder/barrier joints must be lapped and sealed with mastic or the manufacturer’s recommended tape or sealing products. In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarder’s effectiveness. In no case should retarder/barrier products be punctured or gaps be allowed to form prior to or during concrete placement.

16.2 Vapor retarders/barriers do not provide full waterproofing for structures constructed below free water surfaces. They are intended to help reduce or prevent vapor transmission and/or capillary migration through the soil and through the concrete slabs. Waterproofing systems must be designed and properly constructed if full waterproofing is desired. The owner and project designers should be consulted to determine the specific level of protection required.

16.3 Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials.

17. Exterior Slab Reinforcement: As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, we recommend that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks, etc.) be at least 4 inches in actual thickness, founded on properly compacted and tested fill or dense native formation and underlain by Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 36

no more than 3 inches of clean leveling sand, with No. 3 bars at 18-inch centers, both ways, at the center of the slab, and contain adequate isolation and control joints. The performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction. It is therefore important that all improvements are properly designed and constructed for the existing soil conditions. The improvements should not be built on loose soils or fills placed without our observation and testing. The subgrade of exterior improvements should be verified as properly prepared within 48 hours prior to concrete placement. A minimum thickness of 2 feet of properly recompacted soils should underlie the exterior slabs on-grade.

For exterior slabs with the minimum shrinkage reinforcement, control joints should be placed at spaces no farther than 15 feet apart or the width of the slab, whichever is less, and also at re-entrant corners. Control and isolation joints in exterior slabs should be sealed with elastomeric joint sealant. The sealant should be inspected every 6 months and be properly maintained.

E. Slopes
It is our understanding that no new permanent slopes are proposed. Should portions of the site be modified with new slopes, the following recommendations should be applied.

18. Slope Observations: A representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. must observe any steep temporary slopes during construction. In the event that soils and formational material comprising a slope are not as anticipated, any required slope design changes would be presented at that time.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 37

19. Temporary Slopes: Based on our subsurface investigation work, laboratory test results, and engineering analysis, temporary unsurcharged slopes should be stable for a maximum slope height of up to 10 feet and may be cut at a slope ratio of 1.0:1.0 in properly compacted fill soils and at 0.75:1.0 in medium dense natural soils. Some localized sloughing or raveling of the soils exposed on the slopes, however, may occur. Since the stability of temporary construction slopes will depend largely on the contractor's activities and safety precautions (storage and equipment loadings near the tops of cut slopes, surface drainage provisions, etc.), it should be the contractor's responsibility to establish and maintain all temporary construction slopes at a safe inclination appropriate to his methods of operation. No soil stockpiles or surcharge may be placed within a horizontal distance of 10 feet from the excavation.

If these recommendations are not feasible due to space constraints, temporary shoring may be required for safety and to protect adjacent property improvements. Similarly, footings near temporary cuts should be underpinned and/or protected with shoring.

20. Cal-OSHA: Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site should be constructed in accordance with Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by Cal-OSHA.

21. Slope Top/Face Performance: The soils that occur in close proximity to the top or face of even properly compacted fill or dense natural ground cut slopes often possess poor lateral stability. The degree of lateral and vertical deformation depends on the inherent expansion and strength characteristics of the soil types comprising the slope, slope steepness and height, loosening of slope face soils by burrowing rodents, and irrigation and vegetation maintenance Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 38

practices, as well as the quality of compaction of fill soils. Structures and other improvements could suffer damage due to these soil movement factors if not properly designed to accommodate or withstand such movement. A minimum 8-foot setback to the slope face should be provided for foundations supporting structures or improvements.

22. Slope Top Structure Performance: Rigid improvements such as top-of-slope walls, columns, decorative planters, concrete flatwork, swimming pools, and other similar types of improvements can be expected to display varying degrees of separation typical of improvements constructed at the top of a slope. The separations result primarily from slope top lateral and vertical soil deformation processes. These separations often occur regardless of being underlain by cut or fill slope material. Proximity to a slope top is often the primary factor affecting the degree of separations occurring.

Typical and to-be-expected separations can range from minimal to up to 1 inch or greater in width. In order to reduce the effect of slope-top lateral soil deformation, we recommend that the top-of-slope improvements be designed with flexible connections and joints in rigid structures so that the separations do not result in visually apparent cracking damage and/or can be cosmetically dressed as part of the ongoing property maintenance. These flexible connections may include “slip joints” in wrought iron fencing, evenly spaced vertical joints in block walls or fences, control joints with flexible caulking in exterior flatwork improvements, etc.

In addition, use of planters to provide separation between top-of-slope hardscape such as patio slabs and pool decking from top-of-slope walls can aid greatly in reducing cosmetic cracking and separations in exterior improvements. Actual materials and techniques would need to be determined Mi
Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 39

by the project architect or the landscape architect for individual properties.

Steel dowels placed in flatwork may prevent noticeable vertical differentials, but if provided with a slip-end they may still allow some lateral displacement.

F. Retaining Wall Design Criteria

23. Retaining Wall Seismic Earth Pressures (If Applicable): If seismic loading is to be considered for the unrestrained retaining walls more than 6 feet in height, they should be designed for seismic earth pressures in addition to the normal static pressures. For unrestrained retaining walls with level backfill, we recommend that the seismic pressure increment be taken as an additional triangular pressure distribution (zero pressure at the ground surface and maximum pressure at the base) utilizing an equivalent fluid weight of 15 pcf.

Restrained retaining walls do not require additional soil seismic increments added to the static soil pressure. The recommended active soil pressure for unrestrained retaining walls is 38 pcf, and the restrained soil pressure is 56 pcf. Surcharge pressure coefficients are 0.31 and 0.47 for unrestrained and restrained retaining walls, respectively.

24. Wall Drainage: The preceding design pressures assume that the walls are backfilled with the on-site soils or imported low-expansive soils, and that there is sufficient drainage behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. We recommend that drainage be provided by a composite drainage material such as Miradrain 6000/6200 or equivalent. The drain material should terminate 3 inches below the finish surface where the surface is covered by pavements or slabs or 6 inches below the finish surface in landscape areas (see Figure No. X for Retaining Wall Drainage/Waterproofing Schematic). Waterproofing should extend from the bottom to the top of the wall.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 40

Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures or improvements that is attributable to poor drainage. The architectural plans should clearly indicate that subdrains for any lower-level walls be placed at an elevation at least 1 foot below the bottom of the lowerlevel slabs. At least 0.5-percent gradient should be provided to the subdrain.

The subdrain should be placed in an envelope of crushed rock gravel up to 1 inch in maximum diameter, and be wrapped with Mirafi 140N filter or equivalent. A sump pump may be needed if the subdrain does not outlet via gravity. The collected water should be taken to an approved drainage facility.

25. Drainage Quality Control: It must be understood that it is not within the scope of our services to provide quality control oversight for surface or subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall sealing and base of wall drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify proper wall sealing, geofabric installation, protection board (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surface, pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc.

G. Site Drainage Considerations

26. Erosion Control: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken at all times during and after construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad areas or causing erosion on soil surface.

27. Surface Drainage: Adequate measures should be taken to properly finishgrade the lot after the residence, swimming pool and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties should be directed away from the footings, floor slabs, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 41

drainage facilities provided by the project civil engineer. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the residence, with the runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the footings and floor slabs.

Failure to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and possible differential settlement of the structure or other improvements or cause other moisture-related problems. Currently, the CBC requires a minimum one-percent surface gradient for proper drainage of building pads unless waived by the building official. Concrete pavement may have a minimum gradient of 0.5-percent.

28. Planter Drainage: Planter areas, flower beds and planter boxes should be sloped to drain away from the footings and floor slabs at a gradient of at least 5 percent within 5 feet from the perimeter walls. Any planter areas adjacent to the residence or surrounded by concrete improvements should be provided with sufficient area drains to help with rapid runoff disposal. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to the residence or other improvements or anywhere on the site.

H. General Recommendations

29. Project Start Up Notification: In order to reduce any work delays during site development, this firm should be contacted at least 48 hours and preferably 48 hours prior to any need for observation of footing excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observing the excavations; in the event that our observations reveal the need for Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 42

deepening or redesigning foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the excavation, etc.).

30. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs): Construction BMPs must be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the controlling jurisdiction. Sufficient BMPs must be installed to prevent silt, mud or other construction debris from being tracked into the adjacent street(s) or storm water conveyance systems due to construction vehicles or any other construction activity. The contractor is responsible for cleaning any such debris that may be in the street at the end of each work day or after a storm event that causes breach in the installed construction BMPs.

All stockpiles of uncompacted soil and/or building materials that are intended to be left unprotected for a period greater than 7 days are to be provided with erosion and sediment controls. Such soil must be protected each day when the probability of rain is 40% or greater. A concrete washout should be provided on all projects that propose the construction of any concrete improvements that are to be poured in place. All erosion/sediment control devices should be maintained in working order at all times. All slopes that are created or disturbed by construction activity must be protected against erosion and sediment transport at all times. The storage of all construction materials and equipment must be protected against any potential release of pollutants into the environment.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 43

XI. GRADING NOTES
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be retained to verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavation to be as anticipated in this "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance" for the project. In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be observed and tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the local grading ordinance. All retaining wall and trench backfill should be properly compacted. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage occurring due to improperly or uncompacted backfill placed without our observations and testing.

XII. LIMITATIONS
Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with similar soils and formational materials located in this area of Solana Beach. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required.

The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis that meet the contemporary standard of care in our profession within the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided.

Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 44
As stated previously, it is not within the

scope of our services to provide quality
control oversight for surface or subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall sealing and base of wall drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify proper wall sealing, geofabric installation, protection board installation (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surfaces; pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc.

This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building plans, especially with respect to the height and location of any proposed structures, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision.

It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations and that our recommendations for design of this project are incorporated in the structural plans. We should be retained to review the project plans once they are available to verify that our recommendations have been adequately incorporated into them.

This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions presented herein are considered to be unsafe.

The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or ii Bradberry Residence Remodel & Additions Job No. 17-11545 Solana Beach, California Page 45

changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report and the changes are made without our observations, testing, and approval.

Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Reference to our Job No. 17-11545 will expedite a reply to your inquiries.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
________________________________ _____________________________ Jay K. Heiser Jaime A. Cerros, P.E.

Senior Project Geologist R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
________________________________
Jonathan A. Browning
C.E.G. 2615/P.G. 9012
Senior Project Geologist
... --=-- r""\---=--.L r'"--•--=-.L
ning
.G. 9012
Geologist
lai . rros, . . ,,-.r- """AA""""""J,-..r- """nn--,

REFERENCES
JOB NO. 17-11545
November 2017
Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, p. 44.

Berger & Schug, 1991, Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Hazard in the San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Region, Environmental Perils, San Diego Region, San Diego Association of Geologists.

Blake, T., 2002, EQFault and EQSearch Computer Programs for Deterministic Prediction and Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults and Historical Earthquake Catalogs.

Bryant, W.A. and E.W. Hart, 1973 (10th Revision 1997), Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif.

Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.

California Division of Mines and Geology – Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Map, November 1, 1991.

City of San Diego Topographic Surveys, Lambert Coordinates 234-1689, 1953 and 1979.

Crowell, J.C., 1962, Displacement along the San Andreas Fault, California; Geologic Society of America Special Paper 71, 61 p.

Demere, T.A., 2003, Geology of San Diego County, California, BRCC San Diego Natural History Museum.

Greene, H.G., 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderland between San Pedro and San Diego, in “Earthquakes and Other Perils, San Diego Region,” P.L. Abbott and W.J.

Elliott, editors.

Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.

Hart, E.W., D.P. Smith, and R.B. Saul, 1979, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area (Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough Region), Calif. Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-10 SF, 10.

Hart E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif. Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999.

Hauksson, E. and L. Jones, 1988, The July 1988 Oceanside (M =5.3) Earthquake Sequence in the L Continental Borderland, Southern California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 78, p. 1885-1906.

Hileman, J.A., C.R. Allen and J.M. Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972; Seismological Laboratory, Cal-Tech, Pasadena, Calif.

Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California; Bulletin 200, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology.

Kennedy, M.P., S.H. Clarke, H.G. Greene, R.C. Jachens, V.E. Langenheim, J.J. Moore and D.M. Burns, 1994, A digital (GIS) Geological/Geophysical/Seismological Data Base for the san Diego 30’x60’ Quadrangle, California—A New Generation, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, p. 63.
ii
REFERENCES/Page 2
Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 1997A, Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif. Division

of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-10A.

Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 1997B, Age of Faulting in San Diego Bay in the Vicinity of the Coronado Bridge, an addendum to Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif. Div. Of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-10B.

Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 2001, Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, California Geology.

Kennedy, M.P. and S.S. Tan, 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach, and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Map Sheet 29, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1977.

Kennedy, M.P., S.S. Tan, R.H. Chapman, and G.W. Chase, 1975; Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Special Report 123, Calif. Division of Mines and Geology.

Kennedy, M.P. and E.E. Welday, 1980, Character and Recency of Faulting Offshore, metropolitan San Diego California, Calif. Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 40, 1:50,000.

Kern, J.P. and T.K. Rockwell, 1992, Chronology and Deformation of Quaternary Marine Shorelines, San Diego County, California in Heath, E. and L. Lewis (editors), The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Coastal Southern California, pp. 1-8.

Kern, P., 1983, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego, Pickle Press, San Diego, California.

McEuen, R.B. and C.J. Pinckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in San Diego; Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History, v. 17, No. 4.

Richter, C.G., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif.

Rockwell, T.K., D.E. Millman, R.S. McElwain, and D.L. Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California: Lamar-Merifield Technical Report 85-1, U.S.G.S. Contract 14-08-0001-21376, 19 p.

Simons, R.S., 1977, Seismicity of San Diego, 1934-1974, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, p. 809-826.

Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in Southern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Calif. Division of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 95-03.

Toppozada, T.R. and D.L. Parke, 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900-1949; Calif.

Div. Of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 82-17, Sacramento, Calif.

Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, Calif. Div. Of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 93-02, 45 pp, 3 plates.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1953, Aerial Photographs AXN-7M-187 and 188. ii

VICINITY MAP
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA.

Figure No. I
Job No. 17-11545
Site
Thomas Bros Guide San Diego County pg 1167-E7
/
-.,. _ . ...,.,,.,
ANfA HIDA!:
-- -r
~"?~ f:Y . a
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.

B-1
B-1
Bradberry Residence141 Pacific AvenueSolana Beach, CA.Figure No. IIJob No. 17-11545

PLOT PLAN
REFERENCE: This Plot Plan was prepared from an existing Preliminary Topogpraphic Plat by SOWARDS & BROWN ENGINEERING dated 7/06/17 and from on-site field reconnaissance performed by GEI.

Scale: 1” = 20’
(approximate)

PACIFIC AVENUE
LEGEND
NOTE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legalpurposes. Locationss and dimensions are approximate.Actual property dimensions and locations of utilitiesmay be obtained from the Approved Building Plansor the “As-Built” Grading Plans. ( November 2017 )
17-11545-p2.ai
Bluff
Edge
75 Year Erosion
Rate Setback
GSL Setback
( combined 75 year erosion and factor of safety)

1.5 Factor
of Safety
Setback
A
A’
A A’ Approximate Location
of Cross Section
Approximate Locationof Exploratory Boring
Approximate Location HP-3 of Exploratory Handpit
HP-3
HP-2
HP-1
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
\
I I
I
\
\
\
\
I
\
' I
I
\
I
I
\
\
I
I
l
\
I
\
\
I
I
I
\
I
"'
I
\
I '
I
\
I
\
I
I
\
\
\
0 5 10 20 JO
1 - - -i 7 [105.11"'
, [106.8] "'
I
I
"'v
I
I I >"'
~14.7]
}::5;1/ "'
/ "' "' \ "'/ / "'
\ I <J111. 91 "'
\ "' I "' "' \
I "' [105.5 \ "' \ I "'

80.93 "

78.9 NOJES
I. "::c!J°r:oo"'~~~[Y.BWNDARY

2. :::;~; ~:f: HEREON OJ.CVI.ATW
CCRU/1'1 FOOHO SUl<'\fl' 1,1~MR/,./{ 1\IO (2) TlS ,0
1 r;:f- n~/f':l 8Asm UPON A PRfUMJNARY
0Crrx£R 02, 2014. RJCAN rm.c Ca.lPANY DATCD
~: ~!tfl~A::[L 8RAOBERRY
SOCANA BEACH, . CA 92075
SITE: ADDRESS: ,,, PAORC A',f)/U[
SClANA BEACH, CA 92075
ASSESSOl?S PARCEL NUIIBER: 26J-J2J-06
LEGAL OESCR/PllON: COUNTY LOT 4 IN OF BLOCK 23 OF SOLANA BEACH IN THE THfR[if No.5114rEr:lft~iT[r/f ~UfCRNIA, A~1!_/{;NJ~t:JEAC11, SAN DIEGO COUNTY MARCH S, 1923_ C£ OF THE COUNTY RECORDER if BENCHIIARK: arr or SOLANA BE A 2S BRASS DJs/t:! fNCHMARK SCN..8-1 iZtLD~ fa HWY WI o.c:'~~:iN~~;};; SON 71-1£ EAST
. DArtJM: MSL ANTA Ff DRIVE.

LEGfND
ABO\.£ GRADE ElEV.

ON GRADE £1.EV.

PROPERTY UN£
ADJACENT PROPERTY UN£
EASfMENT UN£ RHAINING WALL
F[NC[
EX!SllNG BUILDING ROOF LINE
Stl/llOC
X 82.JJ

PRELIMINARY
PROGRESS SET ONLY!
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.

ASPHALT , 2.5" thick.

SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained. Loose
to medium dense. Dry. Light red-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
CLAYEY SAND , fine- to medium-grained.

Medium dense. Moist. Dark red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
Bulk bag sample from 4'- 8'.
-- 11% passing #200 sieve.

POORLY GRADED SAND/ CLAYEY SAND ,
fine- to medium-grained. Dense. Slightly moist.

Red-brown to light gray-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
Bulk bag sample from 18'- 22'.
-- 15% passing #200 sieve.
3"
2"
3"
2"
3"
2"
3"
2"
13 27
31 31
82 59
94/
11"
46 107.4
120.2
111.3

9.5 9.0

4.4 4.3

3.8 120.0
128.0
SM
SC
SP-
SC

DATE LOGGED

FIGURE NUMBER
17-11545

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

JOB NUMBER

SURFACE ELEVATION
8-inch diameter Boring SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
1 SITE LOCATION

JAB SAMPLE

LOGGED BY
DEPTH (feet)

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
IIIa

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Truck-mounted Auger Drill Rig

JOB NAME
7-7-17 BLOW COUNTS/FT.

LDR/JAC

DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION

REVIEWED BY
± 86' Mean Sea Level

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 SYMBOL

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Not Encountered
B-1
EXPLORATION LOG 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 7/24/17 IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) (%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
POORLY GRADED SAND , fine- to
medium-grained; cohesionless, some mica.

Dense. Slightly moist. Light gray-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
Bulk bag sample from 33'- 38'.
-- 4% passing #200 sieve.
-- becomes very dense, light brown.
3"
2"
3"
2"
3"
2"
3"
2"
3"
2"
86/
11"
44 94/
11"
46 83
44 81/
11"
60 84/

10.5"
64 102.9
100.8

10.0 1.8

2.2 110.5
SP

DATE LOGGED

FIGURE NUMBER
17-11545

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

JOB NUMBER

SURFACE ELEVATION
8-inch diameter Boring SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
1 SITE LOCATION

JAB SAMPLE

LOGGED BY
DEPTH (feet)

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
IIIb

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Truck-mounted Auger Drill Rig

JOB NAME
7-7-17 BLOW COUNTS/FT.

LDR/JAC

DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION

REVIEWED BY
± 86' Mean Sea Level

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.
24 26
28 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 SYMBOL

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Not Encountered
B-1
EXPLORATION LOG 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 7/24/17 IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) (%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
_y
~
□
■
~ 41i-4&1 Geotechnlcal
Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
POORLY GRADED SAND , fine- to
medium-grained; cohesionless, some mica.

Dense. Slightly moist. Light gray-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained. Very
dense. Moist. Brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, trace
iron oxide staining; moderate to strong
cementation. Very dense. Slightly moist. Light
yellow-brown.

TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt)
-- 16% passing #200 sieve.

Bulk bag sample from 62'- 68'.
-- 9% passing #200 sieve.
3"
2"
3"
2"
2"
82/
11"
65 50/
2"
50/
3"
50/
2"
SP
SM
SM

DATE LOGGED

FIGURE NUMBER
17-11545

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

JOB NUMBER

SURFACE ELEVATION
8-inch diameter Boring SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
1 SITE LOCATION

JAB SAMPLE

LOGGED BY
DEPTH (feet)

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
IIIc

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Truck-mounted Auger Drill Rig

JOB NAME
7-7-17 BLOW COUNTS/FT.

LDR/JAC

DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION

REVIEWED BY
± 86' Mean Sea Level

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.
48 50
52 54
56 58
60 62
64 66
68 SYMBOL

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Not Encountered
B-1
EXPLORATION LOG 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 7/24/17 IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) (%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
---------------------------~--
I, -
-f I, -
-I lo
--r • -{ •
,_:
, •
lo _ ,
• -'
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, trace
iron oxide staining; moderate to strong
cementation. Very dense. Slightly moist. Light
yellow-brown.

TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt)
2" 50/
2"
Bottom @ 78.25'
SM

DATE LOGGED

FIGURE NUMBER
17-11545

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

JOB NUMBER

SURFACE ELEVATION
8-inch diameter Boring SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
1 SITE LOCATION

JAB SAMPLE

LOGGED BY
DEPTH (feet)

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
IIId

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Truck-mounted Auger Drill Rig

JOB NAME
7-7-17 BLOW COUNTS/FT.

LDR/JAC

DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION

REVIEWED BY
± 86' Mean Sea Level

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.
70 72
74 76
78 80
82 84
86 88
90 SYMBOL

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Not Encountered
B-1
EXPLORATION LOG 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 7/24/17 IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) (%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
I,
J " ~· " -I I,
1' I,
-i' " i' lo
] lo
lo
J " -I lo
-I lo
--f lo
i' " 7' lo
-' lo _ , '77.
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
---
-
_y
~
□
■
~ -~;1I Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some roots and rock fragments. Loose. Dry.

Gray-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
POORLY GRADED SAND , fine- to
medium-grained. Medium dense. Slightly moist.

Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
Bottom @ 2'
SM
SP

DATE LOGGED

FIGURE NUMBER
17-11545

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

JOB NUMBER

SURFACE ELEVATION
2' X 2' X 2' Handpit SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
1 SITE LOCATION

JAB SAMPLE

LOGGED BY
DEPTH (feet)

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
IIIe

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools

JOB NAME
7-10-17 BLOW COUNTS/FT.

LDR/JAC

DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION

REVIEWED BY
± 85' Mean Sea Level

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.
1 2
3 4 SYMBOL

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Not Encountered
HP-1
EXPLORATION LOG 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 7/24/17 IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) (%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ 41i-4&1 Geotechnlcal
Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some roots. Loose to medium dense. Slightly
moist. Red-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
POORLY GRADED SAND , fine- to
medium-grained. Medium dense. Slightly moist.

Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
Bottom @ 3'
SM
SP

DATE LOGGED

FIGURE NUMBER
17-11545

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

JOB NUMBER

SURFACE ELEVATION
2' X 3' X 3' Handpit SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
1 SITE LOCATION

JAB SAMPLE

LOGGED BY
DEPTH (feet)

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
IIIf

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools

JOB NAME
7-10-17 BLOW COUNTS/FT.

LDR/JAC

DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION

REVIEWED BY
± 86' Mean Sea Level

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.
1 2
3 4
5 SYMBOL

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Not Encountered
HP-2
EXPLORATION LOG 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 7/24/17 IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) (%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ 41i-4&1 Geotechnlcal
Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
SILTY SAND , fine- to medium-grained, with
some roots and rock fragments. Loose. Dry.

Gray-brown.

FILL (Qaf)
POORLY GRADED SAND , fine- to
medium-grained. Medium dense. Slightly moist.

Red-brown.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop 6)
Bottom @ 2'
SM
SP

DATE LOGGED

FIGURE NUMBER
17-11545

GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH

JOB NUMBER

SURFACE ELEVATION
2' X 2' X 2' Handpit SAMPLE O.D. (INCHES)
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
1 SITE LOCATION

JAB SAMPLE

LOGGED BY
DEPTH (feet)

FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND

CLASSIFICATION
IIIg

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
Hand Tools

JOB NAME
7-10-17 BLOW COUNTS/FT.

LDR/JAC

DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION

REVIEWED BY
± 86' Mean Sea Level

EQUIPMENT
LOG No.
1 2
3 4 SYMBOL

PERCHED WATER TABLE

BULK BAG SAMPLE

IN-PLACE SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Not Encountered
HP-3
EXPLORATION LOG 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 7/24/17 IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf) DENSITY (% of M.D.D.) (%) U.S.C.S. IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) EXPAN. + CONSOL. - , "I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_y
~
□
■
~ 41i-4&1 Geotechnlcal
Exploratlon, Inc.
'- ~ ffe- )
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
WATER CONTENT, %

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Water Content 9.5
Source of Material
Description of Material
DRY DENSITY, pcf
CLAYEY SAND (SC), Dark
Red-brown
ASTM D1557 Method A
B-1 @ 6.0'
120.0 PCF
%
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:

2.80 2.70

2.60 Test Method
Expansion Index (EI)
Figure Number: IVa
Job Name: Bradberry Residence
Site Location: 141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
Job Number: 17-11545 COMPACTION + EI DARK GRID 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEI FEB06.GDT 7/24/17 11111' '
I\ ' \ \
\ \
\ ' \
\ \ \ \ 1
\ \
\ ' I\ '
\ \ \ 1
\ \
I\ ' I\ '
..,j " ' \ \
r ' I\ \
' \. \ \ \ I I\ \
\ \ \ \ \ ' ,~ \
\
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
\
\ '
\
\ '
\ \ I\ \ '
\ I\
I\ \
\ I\ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ '\
\ \ '
\ I'\ I, \ \
\ ' \ '
\
'\ \
\
"- lo.
\ '\
" \ \ \.
\ I\ '
\
\ ' '\ ' \ '\ I\.
'\ \
' ' I\ '-
'\ I'\ I" \
I"' ' ' I'\..
"' '\ '\ ..
"' '\ ""
I'\. I"' .......
'\ " ........
'" "' I\..
" " .... ,
' "' " "
""
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
WATER CONTENT, %

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Water Content 9.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
DRY DENSITY, pcf
SILTY SAND (SP), Light
Gray-brown
ASTM D1557 Method A
B-1 @ 21.0'
128.0 PCF
%
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:

2.80 2.70

2.60 Test Method
Expansion Index (EI)
Figure Number: IVb
Job Name: Bradberry Residence
Site Location: 141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
Job Number: 17-11545 COMPACTION + EI DARK GRID 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEI FEB06.GDT 7/24/17 I '
.

I
I\ ' \ \
\ \
\ ' \
\ \ \ \ 1
/1 \ \
\ \ ' 1 \ I\ \
\ \
\ \ 1
\ \
I\ ' \ I\ \
' \ \
I\ \
\ \ \
I\ \
\ \ \ \ '
\
\
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
\
\ '
\
\ '
\ \ I\ \ '
\ I\
I\ \
\ I\ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ '\
\ \ '
\ I'\ I\
\ \
\ ' \ '
\
'\ \
\
I\
lo.
\ '\
I\
\ \ \.
\ I\ '
\ \ \
'\ ' \ '\ I\.
'\ \
' ' I\ '-
'\ I'\ I" \
I"' ' ' I'\..
"' '\ '\ ..
"' '\ ""
I'\. I"' .......
'\ " ........
1"- "' I\..
" " .... ,
' "' " "
""
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
WATER CONTENT, %

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Water Content 10.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
DRY DENSITY, pcf

POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP),
Light Gray-brown
ASTM D1557 Method A
B-1 @ 36.0'
110.5 PCF
%
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:

2.80 2.70

2.60 Test Method
Expansion Index (EI)
Figure Number: IVc
Job Name: Bradberry Residence
Site Location: 141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
Job Number: 17-11545 COMPACTION + EI DARK GRID 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEI FEB06.GDT 7/24/17 I\ ' \ \
\ \
\ ' \
\ \ \ \ 1
\ \
\ ' I\ '
\ \ \ 1
\ \
I\ ' I\ '
' \ \
I\ \
\ \ \
I\ \
\ \ \ \ '
\ \
\ '
\ \
\ ' .,,,. --- \ \ • ' I\ \ ' ~ \ I\
I\ \
\ I\ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ '\
\ \ '
\ I'\ I\
\ \
\ ' \ '
\ I\
'\ \ lo.
\ '\
\ I\
\ \ \.
\ I\ '
\ \ \
'\ ' \ '\ I\.
'\ \
' ' I\ '-
'\ I'\ I" \
I"' ' ' I'\..
"' '\ '\ ..
"' '\ ""
I'\. I"' .......
'\ " ........
1"- "' I\..
" " .... ,
' "' " "
""
-~~-..

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
'~~~ ~
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
317
274
511

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
29 28
31 c
CLAYEY SAND (SC), Dark Red-brown
POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP), Light Gray-brown
SILTY SAND (SM), Light Yellow-brown
Specimen Identification Classification MC%

B-1 @ 8.5'
B-1 @ 29.0'
B-1 @ 62.0'
Figure Number: IVd
Job Name: Bradberry Residence
Site Location: 141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA
Job Number: 17-11545
US_DIRECT_SHEAR 11545 BRADBERRY.GPJ GEO_EXPL.GDT 8/1/17 •
Ill
...
~~~• Geotechnical ~,~.-.I Exploration, Inc.
~-~,~-,.-~I~~
~~
♦
Depth 35-36 Feet
Friction Angle ᶲ (degrees) 35.4
Test Method ASTM D3080, Unsaturated
Peak, Remolded to 95%
Symbol
Source of Material B-1

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Figure No. IVd
JOB NAME:

Bradberry Residence
SITE LOCATION: 141 Pacific
Street, Solana Beach, CA

DIRECT SHEAR
JOB NUMBER: 17-11545
U.S.C.S. SILTY SAND (SM)
Cohesion (psf) 1108.8
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Shear Strength (psf)
Normal Load (psf)
Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Tests of Soils
4~~= Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
~
Figure No. V
Job No. 17-11545

EXCERPT FROM
July 2017 Bradberry-Res-combo-2008-geo.ai
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA.

Site
VOP1 3
Qvop12
Beach
Base Map
Onshore base (hypsography, hydrography, and
transl)Or1 ation) from U.S.G.S. digital line graph (DLG) data, San Diego 30' x 60' metric quadrangle. Shaded
topographic base from U S.G.S. digi1 al elevation models (OEM's). Offshore balhymetric contours and shaded
bathymetry from N.O.AA single and rnultibeam data
Projection is UTM, zone 11 , North American Datum 1927. •usGs
scie,.c1 fo, 11cltan9ing watld
This map was funded in part by the U.S. Geological
Survey National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program,
STATEMAP Award no. 98HQAG2049.

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Southern California Areal Mapping Project
Copyright @2006 by the California Department of Conservation All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced withou1 written consent of the California Geological Survey.

The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitabilityof thisproduct foranyparticular purpose.

Q 70
_L-~--.. .. , ....... D
,.__....__- • - ·········· T
70 -'-
60 -=-
-El55
__._
GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SAN DIEGO 30' x 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA By
Michael P. Kennedy1 and Siang S. Tan1
2008
Digital preparation by
Kelly R. Bovard2 , Anne G. Garcia2, Diane Burns2 , and Carlos I. Gutierrez'

1. Department of Conservot1on. California Geological Survey

2. U.S. Geological Survey. Department of Ear1h Sciences. University of California. Ri verside

ONSHORE MAP SYMBOLS
Contact - Contact between geologic units; dotted where concealed.

Fault - Sol id where accurately localed; dashed where
approximately located; dotted where concealed. U = upthrown block, D = downthrown block. Arrow and number indicate
direction and angle of dip of fault plane.

Anticline - Solid where accurately located; dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. Arrow
indicates direction of axial plunge.

Syncline - Solid where accurately located; dotted where concealed.

Arrow indicates direction of axial plunge.

Landslide - Arrows indicate principal direction of movement.

Queried where existence is questionable.

Strike and dip of beds
Inclined
Strike and dip of igneous joints
Inclined
Vertical
Strike and dip of metamorphic foliation
Inclined

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS
Unit 6
Torrey Sandstone (middle Eocene)-White to light-brown,
medium- to coarse-grained, moderately well indurated, massive and broadly cross-bedded, arkosic sandstone. This unit is the Torrey Sand Member of Hanna (1926) and was named for
exposures at Torrey Pines State Park. It is now considered a formation of the La Jolla Group (Kennedy and Moore, 1971) Old paralic deposits, undivided
(late to middle Pleistocene)
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
17-11545-AA
+-
Q) Q)
::!::..
_J
V)
Q)
>
0 .n
<(
C
0 :;::
0 > Q)
ill
Q)
+-
0 E
-~
Q. Q.
<(
100
80 60
40 20
0 A
0 20
Existing
Grade
40 NOTE: This Cross Section is not to be used for legal purposes. Locations and dimensions are approximate. Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities may be obtained from the Approved
Building Plans or the "As-Built" Grading Plans.

BLUFF EDGE
- ? -
60 80
CROSS SECTION A-A1
25'
Bradberry Residence
141 Pacific A venue
Solana Beach, CA.
p
L
I Setback I
I 40'
I Setback
I

I I I I I I I
HP-1 I
(Qaf) I
I I
Existing
Structure
HP-2
(projected 25' South)
(
~ -rT- - ? - ?
lcaop6 >
- ?-
100
- ?-
120 140
Relative Horizontal Distance (feet)
Scale: l" = 20'
(Horizontal and Vertical)
160
B-1
(projected 1 O' North)
p
L
I
HP-3 I
(projected 16' North)
- ?-
(Tt)
180 200

PACIFIC
AVENUE
- ? -
220
A•
240 260
Figure No. VI
Job No. 17-11545
4~- Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

July2017

APPENDIX A
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (U.S.C.S.)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Coarse-grained (More than half of material is larger than a No. 200 sieve) GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little (More than half of coarse fraction or no fines.
is larger than No. 4 sieve size, but
smaller than 3”) GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines.

GRAVELS WITH FINES GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures SANDS, CLEAN SANDS SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines (More than half of coarse fraction
is smaller than a No. 4 sieve) SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.

SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.

SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.

Fine-grained (More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve)

SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit Less than 50 ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, silty clays, lean clays.

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.

Liquid Limit Greater than 50 MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils Ii

APPENDIX B
USGS Design Map Summary Report
ii
7/31/2017 Design Maps Summary Report
EUSGS Design Maps Summary Report
User-Specified Input
Report Title Bradberry residence
Mon July 31, 2017 23:52:11 UTC
Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
Site Coordinates 32.9923°N, 117.2746°W
Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil"
Risk Category I/II/III
USGS-Provided Output
S5 = 1.208 g
S1 = 0.469 g
Solana Beal
SMS = 1.228 g
SM1 = 0.718 g
SDS = 0.819 g
SD1 = 0.479 g
POWfY t
y ,( I'
For information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document.

For PG~, Tu CRS, and CR1 values, please view the detailed report.

Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn 1 /designmaps/us/summary.php?template=minimal&latitude=32.9923&Iongitude=-117 .27 46&siteclass=3&riskcategory=0... 1 /1

A P P E N D I X C
Slope Stability Analysis
ii
SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS WITH SLIDE 6 COMPUTER PROGRAM Bradberry Residence
G.E.I. Job No. 17-11545
We have performed gross slope stability calculations using the SLIDE 6 program by Roc Science. The program is a limit equilibrium slope stability program that allows the use of several slope stability methods to calculate the factors of safety against shear failure. On this project, we used the Bishop Simplified method as a basis for calculations by using circular slide planes for analysis through the site geological cross sections.

The program calculates the factor of safety against shear failure on potential slide surfaces for different range of locations that were specified. We chose the range of slide surfaces where shear failures appear most likely to occur. The program output displays the factor of safety for the analyzed surface range. The printout shows a geologic cross-section with different colored layers, with each layer corresponding to their respective soil strength parameters. A contour block with different colors and shades corresponds to different ranges of factors of safety within a calculated specified analyzed range of slide surfaces (see attached printouts for Section A-A’ in the attached report. The program displays numbers inside the contour box representing the factor of safety for that surface. The green circle represents the lowest possible factor of safety that was calculated out of all possible calculated surfaces within the contour block. Soil strength values, geometry, and water conditions (no water encountered) used in the program were based on geological information at the site obtained by our project geologist. Soil strength values were obtained from shear strength tests performed by Geotechnical Exploration Inc. in remolded soil samples, however, the soil cohesion of formational soils cannot be fully reproduced in remolded soils samples, we have adjusted those values based on our experience and observations at the site and slopes in the vicinity.

Once the static gross stability of different slide planes was calculated, we analyzed the same sections including a seismic lateral force of 0.15g to obtain the factor of safety for seismic conditions. The calculated factors of safety for both static and seismic analysis yielded values that are considered acceptable, i.e., 1.5 or higher for static load analysis, and 1.15 for seismic analysis.

The shallow slope stability calculations were performed on the different slope segments measured on the slope faces of sections along the different slopes by using geotechnically accepted equation for infinite slopes with a saturated upper layer. The calculations were performed by assuming that the upper 3 feet of those soils were saturated and the slope segment analyzed had infinite length. The calculations yielded the factor of safety against shear failure of a sliding block 3 feet high against the soil shear strength frictional and cohesion strength opposing the driving force. The calculated factors of safety also yielded factors of safety that are equal or higher than the minimum acceptable of 1.5.

1.527

EXISTINGSTRUCTURE
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru FILL (Qafe) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 150 32 None 0
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop6) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 35 None 0 TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 850 38 None 0
Project SummaryBRADBERRY RESIDENCESLOPE STABILITY ANALYSISR.A.C.G.E.I.8/10/2017, 12:52:35 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP. 25' SETBACK
40' SETBACK

PACIFICAVENUE

18.493

25.000

40.000
Safety Factor

0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 150 100 500
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Analysis Description SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:360 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 17-11545A01.slim Date 8/10/2017, 12:52:35 PM Project

BRADBERRY RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
Static analysis of the bluff. The25' and 40' setback are shown.

Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
1---------------,---------,------------------------i

1.229

EXISTINGSTRUCTURE
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru FILL (Qafe) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 150 32 None 0
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop6) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 35 None 0 TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 850 38 None 0
Project SummaryBRADBERRY RESIDENCESLOPE STABILITY ANALYSISR.A.C.G.E.I.8/10/2017, 1:33:41 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP. 25' SETBACK
40' SETBACK

PACIFICAVENUE

22.465

25.000

40.000

0.15 Safety Factor

0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 150 100 500
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Analysis Description SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:360 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 17-11545A01w_0.15gSHAKE.slim Date 8/10/2017, 1:33:41 PM Project

BRADBERRY RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
Seismic analysis of the bluff.The 25' and 40' setback areshown. \
\
CJ
CJ
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
----:-----::~ ~--------------,-----~----------------7

1.511
100.00 lbs/ft2

EXISTINGSTRUCTURE
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru FILL (Qafe) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 150 32 None 0
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop6) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 35 None 0 TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 850 38 None 0
Project SummaryBRADBERRY RESIDENCESLOPE STABILITY ANALYSISR.A.C.G.E.I.9/20/2017, 8:11:18 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

PACIFIC
AVENUE

16.182
Safety Factor

0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 150 100 500
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Analysis Description SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:360 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 17-11545A02.slim Date 9/20/2017, 8:11:18 PM Project

BRADBERRY RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
Static analysis of the calculated75 year futeu rate slope face.The analysis shows a potentialslide surface with a factor of safety of 1.51. 1: 1 I I 111 1
D
~,.. = Geotechnical ~I,-, Exploration, Inc.

1.227
100.00 lbs/ft2

EXISTINGSTRUCTURE
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru FILL (Qafe) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 150 32 None 0
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop6) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 35 None 0 TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 850 38 None 0
Project SummaryBRADBERRY RESIDENCESLOPE STABILITY ANALYSISR.A.C.G.E.I.9/20/2017, 8:20:57 AMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

PACIFIC
AVENUE

20.995

0.15 Safety Factor

0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 150 100 500
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
Analysis Description SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:360 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 17-11545A02w_0.15gSHAKE.slim Date 9/20/2017, 8:20:57 AM Project

BRADBERRY RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
Seismic analysis of the calculated75 year future rate slope. The analysis shows a factor of safetyof 1.227 (lowest possible value). 1: 1 I I 111 1
D
~,.. = Geotechnical ~I,-, Exploration, Inc.

1.300 100.00 lbs/ft2

EXISTINGSTRUCTURE
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru FILL (Qafe) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 150 32 None 0
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop6) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 35 None 0 TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 850 38 None 0
Project SummaryBRADBERRY RESIDENCESLOPE STABILITY ANALYSISR.A.C.G.E.I.9/20/2017, 8:15:53 AMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP. 25'

SETBACK
40'

SETBACK

PACIFIC
AVENUE

16.777

0.15 Safety Factor

0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 150 100 500
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Analysis Description SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:360 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 17-11545A03w_0.15gSHAKE.slim Date 9/20/2017, 8:15:53 AM Project

BRADBERRY RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
Seismic analysis of the calculated75 year future rate slope. The analysis shows a factor of safety of 1.30. 1: 1 I I 111 1
D
~,.. = Geotechnical ~I,-, Exploration, Inc.

EXISTING

STRUCTURE
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru FILL (Qafe) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 150 32 None 0
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop6) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 550 35 None 0 TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) 120 Mohr-Coulomb 850 38 None 0
Project SummaryBRADBERRY RESIDENCESHALLOW STABILITY ANALYSISR.A.C.G.E.I.8/10/2017, 2:15:11 PMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP. 25' SETBACK
40' SETBACK

PACIFICAVENUE
44°
42°
72°
34°
Safety Factor

0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 150 125 100 75 50 250
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Analysis Description SHALLOW STABILITY ANALYSIS
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:300 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 17-11545A_SHALLOW.slim Date 8/10/2017, 2:15:11 PM Project

BRADBERRY RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
This analysis shows the inclinationangle used for the surficial slopestability. For the calculated factor of safety value, refer to the following spreadsheet. 1: 1 I I 111 1
CJ CJ

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CJ I I
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
1--------------,--------,--------------,
JOB NO. 17-11545(BRADBERRY RESIDENCE) -.xlsx SHALLOW FAILURE CALCS 8/15/2017 ϒsat ϒwater ϒ' H
pcf pcf pcf ft
EQUATION 1 130 62.4 67.6 3
SOIL TYPE C (psf) φ(°) β(°) F.S.

OLD PARALIC DEP. (Qafc) 550 35 42 3.240
OLD PARALIC DEP. (Qafc) 550 35 72 4.917
OLD PARALIC DEP. (Qafc) 550 35 44 3.199
TORREY SANDST. (Tt) 850 38 34 5.304

SHALLOW FAILURE

CROSS-SECTION A-A'
Factors of Safety ABOVE 1.5 are adequate.
β
φ
C
ϒsat
ϒ'
H
Slope inclination with respect to the horizontal
plane
Friction angle of the soil
Cohesion of the soil
Saturated unit weight of the soil
Submerged unit weight of the soil
Thickness of the saturated soil layer
= .܁ ۴.
۱ ઺ ܖܑܛ × ઺ ܛܗ܋ × ۶ × ܜ܉ܛ઻
+
઻′
ܜ܉ܛ઻
∗
૎ ܖ܉ܜ
઺ ܖ܉ܜ
SHALLOW SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS IS BASED ON EQUATION (1) FOR THE CALCULATED VALUES.

A P P E N D I X D
Coastal Hazard Report
by Geosoils, Inc.

September 15, 2017
ii
•
Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com September 15, 2017
Mr. and Mrs. Bradberry
141 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California 92075
W.O. S7336-SC
Subject: Coastal Hazard Discussion for Proposed Single-Family Residential Remodel 141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bradberry:

GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to provide this coastal hazard discussion for the proposed remodel at 141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, CA. The analysis is based upon the discussion of the preliminary project plan, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) Sea Level Rise (SLR) guidance document, our site inspection, and knowledge of local coastal conditions. This report is intended to provide the City of Solana Beach and the CCC the necessary coastal hazard information for the project.

INTRODUCTION
The property, located at 141 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, California, lies on top of a sea cliff just north of Fletcher Cove in Solana Beach. This section of shoreline is fronted by a narrow (intertidal) sand beach, and backed by the sea cliff and Pacific Avenue. Figure 1 is a 2016 bird's eye photograph showing the site and adjacent properties downloaded with permission from Pictometry International Corp. Figure 1 shows that the southern portion of the site is fronted by a bluff that is almost perpendicular to the shoreline. There is currently an existing residential structure on the site. It is our understanding that the proposed project is a remodel. The lowest habitable finished floor (FF) of the existing development is above elevation +80 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). The beach near the site has been nourished in the past with sand as part of a regional beach nourishment program.
2 Figure 1. Subject site and adjacent properties in 2016.

DATUM
The datum used in this report is Mean Sea Level (MSL). In the open ocean of the San Diego County coast, Mean High Water (MHW) is ~1.87 feet above MSL, and MSL is

2.54 feet above NAVD88. The units of measurement in this report are feet (ft), pounds force (lbs), and second (sec). A site topographic survey, was prepared by Sowards & Brown Engineering, Inc., and site plans were provided by Dean Meredith, the project architect. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be issuing a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) in late 2018. As shown in Figure 2, the existing structure is proposed to be entirely within unshaded FEMA Zone X. The shaded FEMA Zone X has less than 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard, and no base flood elevations (BFE) are shown within the shaded X Zone. The BFE in the adjacent VE Zone is +23 feet NAVD88 ( +20.5 feet MSL). This roughly corresponds to the FEMA estimate of wave run up on the bluff. This FEMA BFE does not include SLR over the life of the project. The CCC Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance provides a SLR range, over the time period from 2000 to 2100, of 16.56 inches to 65.76 inches.
3 Figure 2. Proposed 2018 FEMA panel and flood zones for the site.

COASTAL HAZARDS
There are three different potential oceanographic hazards identified at this site: wave runup, shoreline erosion, and flooding. For ease of review, each of these hazards will be analyzed and discussed separately followed by a summary of the analysis including conclusions and recommendations as necessary.

WAVE RUNUP ANALYSIS
As waves encounter the beach in front of this section of shoreline, the water rushes up the beach as well as the bluff. Often, wave runup strongly influences the design and the cost of coastal projects. Wave runup is defined as the vertical height above the still water level to which a wave will rise on a structure of infinite height. Overtopping is the flow rate of water over the top of a finite height structure as a result of wave runup. The elevation of the top of the bluff is about +83 feet MSL.

Wave runup on the existing bluff is calculated using the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Automated Coastal Engineering System, ACES. The methods to calculate runup implemented within this ACES application are discussed in greater detail in the Coastal Engineering Manual (2004 ). The runup estimate calculated herein are corrected for the effect of onshore winds. The runup analysis will consider the maximum credible SLR over the project design life (75 years) to determine if wave run up will exceed the top of the bluff elevation. Figure 3 from the ACES manual shows some of the variables involved in the runup analysis.
4 h s
Figure 3. Wave runup terms from ACES analysis.
d5 is the depth of the water at the toe of the bluff.

Hi is the breaking wave height at the at the toe not to be confused with the deep water wave height H0
R is the height of the wave runup above the still water elevation h5 is the height of the bluff above the toe
0 is the slope of the bluff
<t> is the nearshore slope or slope from the shoreline to beyond the breakers Oceanographic Design Parameters
The wave, wind, and water level data used as input to the ACES runup analysis was taken from the historical data reported in USACOE CCSTWS report #88-6, and updated, as necessary. The San Diego North County shoreline has experienced a series of storms over the years. These events have impacted coastal property and beaches depending upon the severity of the storm, the direction of wave approach and the local shoreline orientation. The ACES analysis was performed on oceanographic conditions that represent a typical 75- to 100-year recurrence storm.

Project SLR
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) SLR Guidance document recommends that a project designer determine the range of SLR using the "best available science." When the SLR Guidance document was adopted by the CCC in 2015, it stated that the best available science for quantifying future SLR was the 2012 National Research Council (NRC) report (NRC, 2012). The NRC (2012) is no longer considered the state of the art for assessing the magnitude of SLR in the marine science communities. The April 2017 "Rising Seas in California" by the California Ocean Protection Council (COPC) provides more current SLR estimates within a probability frame work. The COPC provides SLR estimates based 5 upon various carbon emIssIon scenarios known as a "representative concentration pathway" or RCP. The La Jolla estimates are valid throughout southern California.

Figure 4 provides the April 2017 COPC table of latest SLR estimates (in feet) and the probabilities of those estimate to meet or exceed the 1991-2009 mean, based upon the best available science.
(c) La Jolla
2030 0.5 0.4- 0.6 0.7 0.9
lO 0 0.9 0 .7 -1.2 1.4 2.0
t" l 61 1.7 1.1-2.5 3.3 5.8
.100 (I Ip 4 tJ 2.0 1.3 - 2.8 3.6 6.0
•a !R{P 8 t1 2.6 1.8- 3.6 4.6 7.1
) (If++ 10
9 p 2.5 1.5- 3.9 5.7 11.1
d50 ( 1 3.1 1.9 - 4 .8 6.5 11.8
l 1 (RCP 5 4.3 3.0- 6.1 7.9 13.3
I l( • 22
Figure 4. Table from COPC (2017), providing current SLR estimates and probabilities.

The purpose of providing this is to illustrate that SLR in the year 2100 for the likely range, considering the most onerous RCP (8.5), is 1.8 feet to 3.6 feet above the 1991-2009 mean.

This can be interpolated to be about 3.3 feet above the 2017 mean over the next 75 years.

Based upon this 2017 COPC SLR report, the maximum SLR for the project is estimated to be 3.3 feet. The maximum historical water elevation in the Oceanside area is elevation ~+5 feet MSL on January 11, 2005. This actual high water record period includes the 1982-83 severe El Nino, and the 1997 El Nino events, and is therefore consistent with the methodology outlined in the CCC Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance document. Per the Guidance, this elevation includes all short-term oceanographic effects on sea level, but not the long-term sea level rise prediction. If 3.3 feet are added to this 5 feet MSL elevation, then future design maximum water level of 8.3 feet is determined.

The wave that has the greatest runup is the wave that has not yet broken when it reaches the toe of the structure (bluff). It is not the largest wave to come into the area. The larger waves break offshore of the bluff and lose much of their energy before reaching the shoreline. The maximum scour at the bluff toe is about elevation -2 feet MSL. If the total water depth for the maximum SLR case is the water elevation minus the scour depth, then water depth is 10.3 feet. The maximum wave run up is from the wave that breaks just at 6 the toe of the bluff. This is a depth limited case where the breaker height is 78% of the water depth. Therefore, the design wave heights are 5.6 feet and 8.1 feet with a chosen period of 16 seconds (a peak period for storm waves at the site). This design wave determination is consistent with the guidelines in the current FEMA specifications.

Because our analysis uses conservative oceanographic design conditions (largest wave, highest still water elevation, and scoured beach), the longshore transport rate and the seasonal beach profile changes are not relevant. Table I is the ACES output for these design conditions.

Table I
ACES j Mode: Single Case j Functional Area: Wave - Structure Interaction Application: Wave Runup and Overtopping on Impermeable Structures Item Unit Value Snooth Slope i---•-··- ~- ----------:------ Runup and Incident Wave Height Hi: ft 8.100 Overtopping
Wave Period T: sec 16.~
COTAN of Nearshore Slope COTC!I!): 50.~
Water 141 Pacific Depth at Structure Toe ds: ft 10.400
COTAN of Structure Slope COTC8): 0.100 Ave, Solana
Structure Height Above Toe hs: ft 84.~ Beach
Wave Runup R: ft 25.237
Onshore Wind Velocity U: ft/sec 50.634 Maximum
Deepwater Wave Height H0: ft 5.346 Wave runup Relative Height ds/H0: 1.946 Wave Steepness H0/ C gr"2) : 0.000649 + SLR
Overtopping Coefficient 0:: 0.070000
Overtopping Coefficient Qstar0: 0.050000
n, overtopping Rate Q: ft"3/s-ft 0.~ - -···
The maximum wave runup with 3.3 feet of SLR is elevation +33.5 feet MSL (25.24 + 8.3 feet MSL). Wave run up will not exceed the top of the bluff in the future with consideration of SLR.

SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORICAL BLUFF RETREAT RATE
GEi
Geotechncial Exploration, Inc. (GEi), the project geotechnical engineer, has provided a site-specific historical bluff retreat rate analysis. This included reviews of historical aerial photographs, physical surveys, and photogrammetry. The methodology GEi used exactly conforms to the "Guidelines for establishing long-term retreat rates" provided in Johnsson (2005), which states, "historic data currently are our best indicators of future erosion at any given site." In addition, Johnsson (2005) states, "The best data are those 7 compiled photogrammetrically, whereby distortions inherent to aerial photography . . . are corrected . ... " GEi determined a site specific historical retreat rate of 0.24 ft/yr.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS produced a report in 2007 concerning cliff retreat along the California coast, including the Solana Beach area (Hapke and Reid, 2007), which clearly states that, &<Rates of change are being published for the purpose of regional characterization. The results and products prepared by USGS are not intended for comprehensive detailed site specific analysis of cliff retreat." Furthermore, the analysis was based upon two data points (historical bluff tops). The first data point was 1933 NOS Topographic Maps (T-Sheets), which included significant uncertainties. For instance, the measurement uncertainties (see page 9 of Hapke and Reid [2007]) of the bluff top location in 1933 had a total position uncertainty of 10.8 meters or approximately 35 feet. The second data point was 1998 Lidar data with a total position uncertainty of 1.4 meters or roughly 5 feet. The annualized retreat rate uncertainly is reported to be 0.2 m/yr (0.656 ft/yr). What this means is that the retreat rate can be± 0.65 ft/yr. This uncertainty is greater than the site-specific retreat rate of 0.24 ft/yr calculated by GEi.

Future Bluff Retreat Rate Modeling
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
The USACOE and the cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach prepared a joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) in 2015 to evaluate potential options for reducing storm damage related coastal erosion over a 50- year period anticipated to occur from 2018 through 2068. This included cost assessments of damages caused by bluff erosion and shoreline restoration for the cities. In order for the cities to receive federal funding for shoreline restoration, the USACOE report needed to demonstrate that the benefit to cost ratio was significant, or somewhat greater than 1.0.

While the subject site is located within a reach of the Solana Beach shoreline examined by the USACOE, their findings are NOT specific to the subject property. The 2015 USACOE reported a historical (Pre-Anthropengic) retreat rate at Fletcher Cove of

0.116 ft/yr. In addition, for the section of shoreline from Table Tops Reef to Fletcher Cove the estimated future bluff retreat rate ranging between 0.4 ft/yr to 1.2 ft/yr. These are estimates for a length of shoreline that is roughly 3,500 feet long and has varying geologic profiles and geologic structures. It clearly states in USACOE (2015) that the bluff top erosion rates will be less where a partially cemented cap is present. This cemented cap condition exists at the subject property and can be easily seen in Figure 5. 8 Figure 5. Cemented cap at 141 Pacific Avenue
The future bluff erosion rate reported in the EIR/EIS were determined using bluff erosion modeling. To achieve erosion rates that justified the federal funding, the assumptions and inputs for the modeling were unrealistically onerous. For example:
• There is NO historical data provided that shows an erosion rate of 1 ft/yr or greater over any time period greater than 10 years. The modeling was not calibrated to past conditions.
• The model used the absolute weakest soil strength parameters. • The model assumes NO beach at all over the 50-year time period. • The model does not account for the change in littoral materials from sand to cobbles where cobbles do provide some armoring of the bluff.
• The model did not account for the impact of sand placed during RBSP2, which has significantly and is still significantly reducing beach erosion.

USGS
The USGS developed the CoSMoS computer application (Barnard, et al., 2014) to predict coastal flooding. The USGS then expanded upon the computer models therein to include shoreline evolution using data from the Hapke and Reid (2007) and Hapke, et al. (2006) studies. GSI points out that the CoSMoS website contains a disclaimer stating that, "This interactive mapping tool, including its data and other information ('tool and data? are 9 provided for informational purposes. The tool and data are not for the purpose of providing advice or guidance on issues or activities related to its content including, but not limited to, navigation, investment, development or permitting." As previously stated, neither the Hapke and Reid (2007) nor the Hapke, et al. (2006) reports are intended for comprehensive, detailed site-specific analysis of cliff retreat and the annualized retreat rate. In addition, the Hapke and Reid (2007) study explicitly reports a retreat rate uncertainty of 0.2 m/yr (0.656 ft/yr), which is the greater than the bluff retreat rate GEi calculated for the subject property. CoSMoS 3.0 provides detailed predictions (meter-scale) of coastal flooding due to both future sea level rise and storms integrated with long-term coastal evolution (i.e., beach changes and cliff/bluff retreat) for the southern California region, from Point Conception (in Santa Barbara County) to Imperial Beach, CA.

However, since all of the coastal evolution models rely on a past rate to predict the future rate, if the past rate is incorrect, then the future rate would be intuitively incorrect, regardless of the accuracy of the erosion model. It is not clear as to what model the USGS used to predict cliff retreat for a given SLR amount by the year 2100. More importantly, the use of the CoSMoS model is limited with the following disclaimer.

Disclaimer
Inundated areas shown should not be used for navigation, regulatory, permitting, or other legal purposes. The U.S. Geological Survey provides these data "as is" for a quick reference, emergency planning tool but assumes no legal liability or responsibility resulting from the use of this information.

The USGS modeling should not be used as supporting documentation for a future sitespecific bluff retreat rate. In addition, we have reviewed third-party electronic communication between Dr. Ben Benumof and Mr. Patrick Limber of the USGS. In their correspondence, Mr. Limber states, "The Cosmos cliff projections are large-scale, long-term estimates of cliff behavior -- they project the long-term rate that results from multiple cliff failures accumulating through time, rather than the exact timing of individual cliff failure events. If you're looking at 1) short-term site-specific behavior, as in 'how soon is this cliff likely to fail?', or 2) how a site-specific cross-shore cliff profile might evolve through time, Cosmos-cliffs is probably not the right tool and should be supplemented by local, more geotechnical/y-detailed, investigations." Thus, CoSMos is clearly not the appropriate tool for assigning site-specific rates of future coastal bluff retreat.

Calculated Future Bluff Retreat
A recent peer reviewed paper provides a methodology for predicating the change in cliff retreat rate for a given future SLR (Young, et al., 2014). The paper provides the following equation for predicating future bluff retreat. Future cliff retreat as a function of mean sea level rise (SLR) can be written as:

Where R1, R2 represent past and future cliff retreat ( or retreat rate) and S1, S2 are past and future SLR respectively (or SLR rates). The exponent m may be assumed to be 0.5 (Walkden and Dickson, 2006).

R1 = the GEi calculated retreat rate over ~83 years of 0.24 ft/yr.

S1 = the SLR from 1932 to 2014 = 0.21 m or 21 cm per 83 years (see Figure 6).

S2 = the SLR in the year 2100 (2017 + ~83 years= 2100) which is conservatively estimated to be 125 cm (see Figure 7).

R2 = the calculated retreat rate in 2100, if SL was 125 cm, is 0.97 ft/yr. -
E
00 1.5
00 0
~ z
-
MSL La Jolla (1925-2016)

5.6 - 000 2.0 I
- CCCl.67
- RCP4.5
- Do01.0

3.6 0 -+-'-~~-t-'~ ........... --t-~~-~~'-t-........... ~-'-t-~~~~~__.__,- 1.6 .5 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075
Figure 6. From Dr. Flick, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

When is a projectk,n lfkely to occur?
CA SCI UPOT. RCP 26
CASCI UP'.JT. RCP4.5
CASCI UPOT. RCP6,5
4th CUM ASMT, ACP 2.6
4th CUMASMT. RCP 4.5
41h CUM ASMT, RCP 8.5
NRC & COCAT2013
CCY'...AT2010(LCY:)
COCAT2010iMe:I)
COCAT1010i_H,gh)
Vl.R200>
l?Cc:2007
Approx Mean
2100
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2060 2000 2100 beyond 2100 0 300 cm
Figure 7. Estimate likely SLR projection in the year 2100 = 125 cm from COSMOS. 11 It should be noted that the retreat rate will transition from the current rate to the future rate.

The retreat rate from 1932 to 2014 is calculated to be 0.24 ft/yr. The retreat rate in the year 2100 with 125 cm SLR will be 0.58 ft/yr. To determine an average retreat rate from today to the year 2092, it is the average of 0.24 ft/yr and 0.58 ft/yr or 0.41 ft/yr. Over the 75 year life this translates to a total bluff retreat of about 30.75 feet.

This analysis uses site specific calculated historical bluff retreat, justified and probable SLR over the next 75 years, and scientifically reviewed methodology to calculate the potential annualized retreat rate over the project life.

COASTAL FLOODING
Due to the project elevation there is no coastal flooding hazard at the site. Site drainage is designed by the project civil engineer.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SLR POLICY GUIDANCE INFORMATION Step 1. Establish the projected sea level rise range for the proposed project's planning horizon using the best available science, which is currently the 2012 NRC Report.

Using the CCC SLR estimate, over the project design life that range in the year ~2092 is between 1.8 feet and 3.3 feet. This is the sea level rise range for the proposed project.

Step 2. Determine how physical impacts from sea level rise may constrain the project site, including erosion, structural and geologic stability, flooding, and inundation.

This report demonstrates that the site is reasonably safe from SLR related coastal hazards.

Step 3. Determine how the project may impact coastal resources, considering the influence of future sea level rise upon the landscape as well as potential impacts of sea level rise adaptation strategies that may be used over the lifetime of the project.

As sea level rises, the beach will get narrower, but in time will re-establish itself at a higher elevation. Rather than being inundated by sea level rise, the beach and the nearshore will readjust to the new ocean level over time, such that waves and tides will see the same profile that exists today, albeit with the berm at a higher elevation. This is the principle of beach equilibrium and is the reason why we have beaches today, even though sea level has risen over 200 feet in the last 10,000 years.
12 Step 4. Identify alternatives to avoid resource impacts and minimize risks throughout the expected life of the development.

The impact of SLR on the narrowing beach and lateral access cannot be mitigated at this site alone. With this in mind, it is reasonable that the applicant agrees to participate in whatever City-wide plan is developed and approved.

Step 5. Finalize project design and submit CDP application.

GSI is the coastal engineer for the project and not the project designer nor the applicant.

In conclusion, coastal hazards, which include shoreline erosion, wave and wave runup attack, and flooding, will not significantly impact this property over the life of the proposed remodel development. There are no additional recommendations necessary for wave runup protection and it is likely that no additional shore protection will be needed in the future over the life of the structure.

The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned.

Respectfully Submitted,
GeoSoils Inc.

David W. Skelly, MS,
RCE #47857
13 REFERENCES
Barnard, P.L., van Ormondt, M., Erikson, L.H., Eshleman, J., Hapke, C., Ruggiero, P., Adams, P. N., and Foxgrover, A., 2014, Coastal Storm Modeling System: CoSMoS., Southern California 1.0, projected flooding hazards, https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/ coastal_processes/cosmos/socal1.0/, doi:10.5066/F74B2ZB4.

Benumof, B.T. and Griggs, G.B., 1999, The dependence of seacliff erosion rates on material properties and physical processes: San Diego County, California in Shore & Beach, Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Volume 67, No. 4, pp. 29-41.

California Coastal Commission, 2015, California Coastal Commission sea level rise policy guidance, interpretative guidelines for addressing sea level rise in local coastal programs and coastal development permits, dated August 12.

Hapke, Cheryl J. and, Reid, David; 2007, National Assessment of Shoreline Change Part 4: Historical Coastal Cliff Retreat Along the California Coast: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1133.

Hapke, Cheryl J.; Reid, David; Richmond, Bruce M.; Ruggiero, Peter; and List, Jeff; 2006, National assessment of shoreline change part 3: historical shoreline change and associated coastal land loss along sandy shorelines of the California coast: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1219.

Johnsson, M.J., 2005, Establishing development setbacks from coastal bluffs, California and the World Ocean, pp. 396-416.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2015, Encinitas-Solana Beach coastal storm damage reduction project, San Diego County, California, Appendix C, geotechnical engineering, dated December.
__ , 1996, Encinitas Shoreline, San Diego County, California, dated March.

Young, A.P.,. R.E. Flick, W.C. O'Reilly, D.B. Chadwick, W.F. Crampton, J.J. Helly, 2014, Estimating Cliff Retreat in Southern California Considering Sea Level Rise Using a Sand Balance Approach. Marine Geology, 348, p. 5-26.
21 June 2024
Smith Brothers Construction Job No. 23-14438
P.O. Box 1068
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Attn: Mr. Jeff Smith
Subject: Response to City of Solana Beach Comments
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
Dear Mr. Smith:

At the request of Mr. Reggie Reyes and as required by the City of Solana Beach reviewer, we are responding to the following comments presented in the Geotechnical Review by Universal Engineering Sciences, Job No. 4830.2400013 dated March 1, 2024, for the subject project.

Comment No. 1: In response to Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.’s (GEI’s) response to UES Comment 1, GEI provides a GEI 2017 geotechnical report from 141 Pacific Street, Solana Beach, California (Bradberry Residence) which GEI indicates was used to inform their selection of soil strength parameters for their provided slope stability analysis. (141 Pacific Street is located approximately 0.25-mile south of the applicant’s property). The report contained soil strength testing reports (direct shear laboratory testing results) that indicate soil strength parameters significantly lower than those used in GEI’s slope stability analysis. GEI indicates that their selection of soil strength parameters was based on soil classification and standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts.

It is requested that the consultant provide the rationale for their assignment of soil strength parameters based on soil classification and SPT blow counts, and the rationale for these values superseding provided laboratory results that indicate lower soil strength parameters than used in the analysis.

GEI Response: We performed a deep boring (B-1) at the subject site to obtain soil samples representative of the bluff materials for our revised slope stability analysis.

We included the shear strength values based on the results of the boring and 4~&11 Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 7420 TRADE STREET• SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: [email protected] Bates Residence Job No. 23-14438
Solana Beach, California Page 2
laboratory testing for use in our slope stability analysis. See Figure Nos. IIIa-b for boring logs and SPT blow counts, and Figure Nos. IVa-e for laboratory test results.

Comment No. 2: In response to GEI’s response to UES Comment 2, UES noted that the submitted slope stability analysis included a pseudo-static analysis. However, this analysis, like the static analysis, was based on field and laboratory data from another site. The intent of UES Comment 2 was for the consultant to perform a new pseudo-static analysis based on revised (if necessary) soil strength parameters obtained from samples collected at the subject site. Please refer to Comment 1 above as to whether this revised analysis is necessary, and as to whether soil strength parameters must be derived from samples collected from the subject site.

GEI Response: Our slope stability analysis in this response includes a revised static slope stability analysis as well as a revised pseudo-static slope stability analysis based on the on-site soil strength tests and laboratory results. See attached slope stability calculations, Appendix A.

The findings and opinions presented here have been made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering within the City of Solana Beach. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 23-14438 will help expedite a response to your inquiry.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
_______________________________ ______________________________ Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. Jay K. Heiser
R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Project Geologist
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
_______________________________
Leslie D. Reed, President
C.E.G. 999/P.G. 3391
SITE
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA.

Figure No. I
Job No. 23-14438
Thomas Bros. Guide San Diego County pg 1167-E6

VICINITY MAP

PACIFIC
OCEAN
T e

HILMEN DR
r;;,- ----·- ···-
% \\
'ts,%\ ;;i \ ~ . ~ r 1.s\lt-1<0
i
rJ
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
s 18° 46' 54" V"'i 124.60' PROPERTY LINE ----·----------~---------~ (E) STREET CURB
n -=------Oaf- -==--------~ (E) GONG
(E) PLAN' Ei O p -;;;..;;;;;;;;;JLJ.!H.!!P~-~2 ,;;;;;;;;;;~~;::::Lfl~~.;;;;t;;....;;;;;;;;;;;....;;;;;;;;;....;;;;;;;;;;....,;;;;;V'IA;;;..L~;;;..~..;;;;'Wl-;- ~ -~ - ---la 6 (E) LANDSCAPE
I
(E)

LANDS APE
I DI t
I 1~
10 I
A
1'1"
0 5
I I
Graphic Scale
l" =10'
'<o
10 I
-< ~~ 'Ob 6o//) 'C
15 I
REFERENCE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legal
purposes. Locations and dimensions are approximate.

Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities
may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans
or the "As-Built" Grading Plans.
--. 1....,
...........

EXISTING 2 STOR SINGLE FAMILY

RESID NGE
~ ~ ---+-________.. ........
)-=HP-3 ~ Qaf
Qop 6
I
EXISTING 3 GAR.

ATTACHED
GAR.AGE
* Based on GEi
Slope Stability
Analysis

GEOLOGIC LEGEND
Qaf Artificial Fill
Qop Old Paralic Deposits , Unit 6
6 MAIN LEVEL PLAN G)
I
LEGEND
~ HP-3 Approximate Location
of Exploratory Handpit
D Bates Residence
A' I Cross Section Location
(E) STON ;
PATIO Td
REMAI
I A'
-I
~ (E) CONCRETE]~

DRIVEY'IAY TO
REMAIN =
(E) SITE V'IALL 4
G-,,t>,TI=
q
ttJ
~
uJ
a
~ (E)
25' -0" LAND APE
F.Y.S.B .
,,
-
-
0 ~ m
z
C
m
(E) LANDSCAPE
(E) FENCE

POT PLAN AND

SI E SPECIFIC

GEOLOGIC MAP
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA.

Figure No. II
Job No. 23-14438
•r.:-~ Geotechnical
;'"11 Exploration, Inc.

JUNE 2024
CB
H
1 10
13 16
7 DEPTH(feet)SYMBOL
EQUIPMENT: Truck Mounted Drill-Rig
JOB NUMBER: 23-14438
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: 8-inch diameter; hollow stem auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: ± 75 feet above mean sea level

GROUNDWATER EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG
B-1BLOW COUNTS (1.)
EXPANSION INDEX6" INCREMENTSN-VALUE,
DATE LOGGED: 5/29/2024
105.1
OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%)
SITE LOCATION:
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach,
CA
FILL (Qaf)
LOGGED BY: JKH
REVIEWED BY: JAC/LDR
U.S.C.S. CLASSIFICATION,

FIELD DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGIC UNIT
(Grain Size, Relative Density/Consistency, Moisture,
Color, Other)
GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH: Not Encountered
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

SAMPLE
FINES CONTENT (%)IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%)IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf)MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf)RELATIVE COMPACTION (% of MDD) SILTY SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense,
slightly moist, red brown
SAMPLE O.D. (inches)
2 3
12 13
9 10
11 4
8 5
6 7
FIGURE NO. IIIa

BULK SAMPLE

CARVED BLOCK (CHUNK) SAMPLE
MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE (ASTM D3550/D3550-17)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586/D1586M-18)
HAND DRIVEN BARREL SAMPLE (ASTM D4700-15)
JOB NAME:

Bates Residence
SILTY SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense,
slightly moist, red brown; moderately cemented

2.7 101.5
3"

4.2 7
7 11
17 21
29 14
38 2"

LOG CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
2"
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop6)
SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense, slightly moist, light gray-red brown; poorly cemented
3"
21 Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop6)
7 9
12 ~~ ~
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

CB
H
EQUIPMENT: Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JOB NUMBER: 23-14438
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: 8-inch diameter; hollow stem auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: ± 75 feet above mean sea level

GROUNDWATER EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG
B-1BLOW COUNTS (1.)
EXPANSION INDEX6" INCREMENTSN-VALUE,
DATE LOGGED: 5/29/2024
13 IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%)
9 12
SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense, slightly moist, light gray-red brown; poorly cemented
DEPTH(feet)SYMBOL
21 2"
LOGGED BY: JKH
REVIEWED BY: JAC/LDR
U.S.C.S. CLASSIFICATION,

FIELD DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGIC UNIT
(Grain Size, Relative Density/Consistency, Moisture,
Color, Other)
GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH: Not Encountered
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

SAMPLE
FINES CONTENT (%)IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf)MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf)RELATIVE COMPACTION (% of MDD)SAMPLE O.D. (inches) 14 15
24 25
21 22
23 16
20 17
18 19
OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%)
SITE LOCATION:
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach,
CA FIGURE NO. IIIb

BULK SAMPLE

CARVED BLOCK (CHUNK) SAMPLE
MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE (ASTM D3550/D3550-17)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586/D1586M-18)
HAND DRIVEN BARREL SAMPLE (ASTM D4700-15)
JOB NAME:

Bates Residence
3"
2"
19 8
11 15
26 11
17 36
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop6)
SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense, slightly moist, light gray-red brown; poorly cemented

LOG CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop6)
11 17
21 3"
2"
38 7
9 12
21 ~~ ~
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

CB
H
25 IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%)
11 17
21 SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense, slightly moist, light gray-red brown; poorly cemented
DEPTH(feet)SYMBOL
EQUIPMENT: Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JOB NUMBER: 23-14438
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: 8-inch diameter; hollow stem auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: ± 75 feet above mean sea level

GROUNDWATER EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG
B-1BLOW COUNTS (1.)
EXPANSION INDEX6" INCREMENTSN-VALUE,
DATE LOGGED: 5/29/2024
111
LOGGED BY: JKH
REVIEWED BY: JAC/LDR
U.S.C.S. CLASSIFICATION,

FIELD DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGIC UNIT
(Grain Size, Relative Density/Consistency, Moisture,
Color, Other)
GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH: Not Encountered
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

SAMPLE
FINES CONTENT (%)IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf)MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf)RELATIVE COMPACTION (% of MDD)SAMPLE O.D. (inches) 26 27
36 37
33 34
35 28
32 29
30 31
OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%)
SITE LOCATION:
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach,
CA FIGURE NO. IIIc

BULK SAMPLE

CARVED BLOCK (CHUNK) SAMPLE
MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE (ASTM D3550/D3550-17)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586/D1586M-18)
HAND DRIVEN BARREL SAMPLE (ASTM D4700-15)
JOB NAME:

Bates Residence
7 9
12 21
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop)
SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense, slightly moist; red brown; moderately cemented

LOG CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop)

4.1 38 3"
2"
~~ ~
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

CB
H
EQUIPMENT: Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JOB NUMBER: 23-14438
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: 8-inch diameter; hollow stem auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: ± 75 feet above mean sea level

GROUNDWATER EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG
B-1BLOW COUNTS (1.)
EXPANSION INDEX6" INCREMENTSN-VALUE,
DATE LOGGED: 5/29/2024
37 SAMPLE
FINES CONTENT (%)IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%)
SILTY SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense,
slightly moist; red brown; moderately cemented
DEPTH(feet)SYMBOL
LOGGED BY: JKH
REVIEWED BY: JAC/LDR
U.S.C.S. CLASSIFICATION,

FIELD DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGIC UNIT
(Grain Size, Relative Density/Consistency, Moisture,
Color, Other)
GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH: Not Encountered
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf)MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf)RELATIVE COMPACTION (% of MDD)SAMPLE O.D. (inches) 38 39
48 49
45 46
47 40
44 41
42 43
OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%)
SITE LOCATION:
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach,
CA FIGURE NO. IIId

BULK SAMPLE

CARVED BLOCK (CHUNK) SAMPLE
MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE (ASTM D3550/D3550-17)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586/D1586M-18)
HAND DRIVEN BARREL SAMPLE (ASTM D4700-15)
JOB NAME:

Bates Residence
25 30
50 80
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop6)
SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense, slightly moist; light-gray red brown; poorly cemented

LOG CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop6)
15 40
40 80 3"
2"
~~ ~
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

CB
H
50/4"
50/6"
EQUIPMENT: Truck Mounted Drill Rig
JOB NUMBER: 23-14438
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: 8-inch diameter; hollow stem auger GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: ± 75 feet above mean sea level

GROUNDWATER EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG
B-1BLOW COUNTS (1.)
EXPANSION INDEX6" INCREMENTSN-VALUE,
DATE LOGGED: 5/29/2024
49 SAMPLE
FINES CONTENT (%)IN-PLACE MOISTURE (%)
LOGGED BY: JKH
REVIEWED BY: JAC/LDR
U.S.C.S. CLASSIFICATION,

FIELD DESCRIPTION AND GEOLOGIC UNIT
(Grain Size, Relative Density/Consistency, Moisture,
Color, Other)
GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH: Not Encountered
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (pcf)MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf)RELATIVE COMPACTION (% of MDD) 55 OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%)
SITE LOCATION:
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach,
CA
SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; medium dense, slightly moist; light-gray red brown; poorly cemented
DEPTH(feet)SYMBOL
Torrey Sandstone (Tt)
-Gravel Layer
Bottom of boring at 56'.

No groundwater encountered, no caving.

Backfilled with on-site soils.
50 50
3"SAMPLE O.D. (inches)
50 51
52 56
53 54
FIGURE NO. IIIe

BULK SAMPLE

CARVED BLOCK (CHUNK) SAMPLE
MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE (ASTM D3550/D3550-17)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586/D1586M-18)
HAND DRIVEN BARREL SAMPLE (ASTM D4700-15)
JOB NAME:

Bates Residence
3"
2"
50 50
Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 (Qop6)
SAND (SM); fine to medium grained; dense, slightly moist; yellow brown; well cemented
50/4"
50/6"
~~ ~
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
FIGURE NO. IV
JOB NAME: Bates Residence
SITE LOCATION: 403 Pacific
Avenue, Solana Beach, CA

DIRECT SHEAR
JOB NUMBER: 23-14438
U.S.C.S. / Description SILTY SAND (SM) / Red
Brown
SILTY SAND (SM) / Light GrayRed BrownSILTY SAND (SM) / Red Brown

42.3 Cohesion (psf) 316.8 172.8 122.4
30-31.5'
Undisturbed Drive SampleSaturated-Peak Stress
Symbol
Sample No. B-1 S-1 S-1
Sample Location Depth 5-6.5' 10-11.5'
Friction Angle ᶲ (degrees) 35.2 36.3
Test Method Undisturbed Drive SampleUnsaturated-Peak Stress Undisturbed Drive SampleUnsaturated-Residual Stress
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Shear Strength (psf)
Normal Load (psf)
Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Tests of Soils
---.- -+- -+-
4~~= Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
~
SITE

PACIFIC
OCEAN
Figure No. V Job No. 23-14438
BATES-GEO-OC.ai
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach CA.

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS
SITE

EXCERPT FROM
Qop Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6 6
June 2024

ONSHORE MAP SYMBOLS
Contact - Contact between geologic units; dotted where concealed.

Fault - Solid where accurately located; dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. U = upthrown block, D = downthrown block. Arrow and number indicate direction and angle of dip of fault plane.

Anticline - Solid where accurately located; dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. Arrow indicates direction of axial plunge.

Syncline - Solid where accurately located; dotted where concealed Arrow indicates direction of axial plunge.

Landslide - Arrows indicate principal direction of movement. Quired where existence is questionable Strike and dip of beds
Inclined
Inclined
Inclined
Strike and dip of igneous foliation
Strike and dip of metamorphic foliation
Kgp - Granite pegmatite dike.

Overturned
Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical
Strike and dip of igneous joints
Inclined
Vertical
Strike and dip of sedimentary joints
Vertical
P13
OP12
each
Qope------
Base Map
Onshore base (hypsography, hydrography, and
transportation) from U.S.G.S. digital line graph (DLG)
data, Oceanside 30' x 60' metric quadrangle. Shaded
topographic base from U.S.G.S. digital elevation models (OEM's). Offshore bathymetric contours and shaded
bathymetry from N.O.AA single and multibeam data.

Projection is UTM, zone 11 , North American Datum 1927. -USGS
scionceforechangingworld
This map was funded in part by the U.S. Geological
Survey National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program,
STATEMAP Award no. 01NQAG0092.

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, Southern California Areal Mapping Project.

Copyright e 2007 by the California Department of Conservation.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey.

The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. 70 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30' x 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA Compiled by
Michael P. Kennedy1 and Siang S. Tan1
2007
Digital preparation by
Kelly R. Bovard2 , Rachel M. Alvarez2, Michael J. Watson2 , and Carlos I. Gutierrez1

1. Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey

2. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside _L _ _l!_ ___ _
D
70 _L_
70 --1:r-
-+-
EB
-+-
6D
---l3-
55 ----"----
---
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.

GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'
A
80 -+-
Q)
Q)
LL.
60 ....J
U')
2 ~ Q)
> 0
~ .0
<( EKOO'l8U
~ 40 C CONCllETE FIU
~ 0
~
~ 0
>
~ Q)
ill EXISTING Tl£'0.64CK
~ Q) SHOTCKET£ WALC. S££
-+- O~WINGSC-9, C-10&
0 C-11 FOil OETAIL zo E
·x
0 I...

Q. rRANSIENT Q.
<(
SANO BEACH~
.,.,,,,..---- __ _,,. - - -- 0
0 NOTE: This Crooo Section lo not to be ueed for legol
:'a'f:.8:tu~~n:ir:!~;~::":nd~oc':f~;iof utllltlee may be obtolned from the Approved Building Plano or the •Ao-Built• Grodlng Plona.
23-14438-AA.dwg
Bates Residence
403 Pacific A venue
Solana Beach, CA.

EXISTING
INFllL
Relative Horizontal Distance {feet)
Scale: 1" = 20'
{Horizontal and Vertical)
'\'•-•::-t,.; :;•;, :•~ .j 'i'•-:t -•.U ·: , , •~ t•. , /:; &ypoint 'Form'1tii • t>
·,1;,.~:··=~-:.-:·• ~:• .... :.:,:: : :,.,._:'\ ~-=a.~ ·;,.1.; 120
Qop
6 140
56'
160
Figure No. VI
Job No. 23-14438
A•
180
,~, Geote<hnkal
Exploration, Inc.
~ June2024

A P P E N D I X A
Slope Stability Analysis
ii

1.600 2.598

4.080

1.740

1.766

1.634

1.600
250.00 lbs/ft2

2.598

4.080

1.740

1.766

1.634

1.600
403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Old Paralic Deposits Layer 1 (Qop 6) 105 Mohr-Coulomb 300 35 None 0 Old Paralic Deposits Layer 2 102 Mohr-Coulomb 170 36 None 0Old Paralic Deposits Layer 3 111 Mohr-Coulomb 120 42 None 0 Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 100 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-Fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.6/14/2024, 8:00:55 AMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

Safety Factor

0.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 150 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:325 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_01.slim Date 6/14/2024, 8:00:55 AM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039

SECTION A-A'
Static circular analysis of the bluff using the obtained direct shear tests results. 7 Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
-~----::~ t---------------~------,------------------.

1.254

1.567

1.430

3.661

1.329

1.322

1.254
250.00 lbs/ft2

1.567

1.430

3.661

1.329

1.322

1.254
403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Old Paralic Deposits Layer 1 (Qop 6) 105 Mohr-Coulomb 300 35 None 0 Old Paralic Deposits Layer 2 102 Mohr-Coulomb 170 36 None 0Old Paralic Deposits Layer 3 111 Mohr-Coulomb 120 42 None 0 Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 100 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-Fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.6/14/2024, 8:51:28 AMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP.

0.15 Safety Factor

0.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 150 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:325 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_01w_0.15gSHAKE.slim Date 6/14/2024, 8:51:28 AM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
Seismic circular analysis of the bluff using the obtained direct shear tests results.

SECTION A-A'
¾
"\
½
1 11 11
Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
-~~
.... t------------------,-------,----------------------i 250.00 lbs/ft2
403 PACIFIC AVE.

Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Old Paralic Deposits Layer 1 (Qop 6) 105 Mohr-Coulomb 300 35 None 0 Old Paralic Deposits Layer 2 102 Mohr-Coulomb 170 36 None 0Old Paralic Deposits Layer 3 111 Mohr-Coulomb 120 42 None 0 Torrey Sandstone (Tt) 125 Mohr-Coulomb 100 35 None 0
Erodible Concrete 140 Mohr-Coulomb 500 38 None 0
ExisƟng Concrete In-Fill 150 Mohr-Coulomb 2000 38 None 0 Project SummaryBATES RESIDENCEBLUFF STABILITY R.A.C.G.E.I.6/14/2024, 8:00:55 AMSECTION A-A'BISHOP SIMP. 45°
33°
43°
Safety Factor

0.0000.2500.5000.7501.0001.2501.5001.7502.0002.2502.5002.7503.0003.2503.5003.7504.0004.2504.5004.7505.0005.2505.5005.7506.000+ 125 100 75 50 250
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Analysis Description BLUFF STABILITY
Company G.E.I. Scale 1:300 Drawn By R.A.C.File Name JOB NO. 23-14438_S(A)_02.slim Date 6/14/2024, 8:00:55 AM Project

BATES RESIDENCE
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.039
This section shows the inclination angle (α)used for the calculation of the surficial slope stability analysis. For the calculated factor of safety, refer to the spreadsheet.

SECTION A-A'
17 Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc.
-~----::~ t-------------------,,-------,----------------------. 6/20/2024 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY CALCS JOB NO. 23-14438 (Bates Property Bluff).xlsx wz ' ϒ wϒ t ϒ
pcf ft pcf pcf

62.4 42.6 3.28 105 EQUATION 162.4 39.6 10262.4 48.6 111 (°) F.O.S. α '(°) φ c (psf) SOIL TYPE

1.298 170 36 45 ) op6 OLD PARALIC LAYER 2 (Q1.053 120 42 45 ) op6 OLD PARALIC LAYER 3 (Q1.329 120 42 33 ) op6 OLD PARALIC LAYER 3 (Q1.090 120 42 43 ) op6 OLD PARALIC LAYER 3 (Q Special Publication 117A (2008, page 27): for infinite slope analysis, the minimum assumed depth of soil saturation is the smaller of either a depth of one meter or depth to firm bedrock.

SURFICIAL FAILURE

SECTION A-A'

1.50 and are inadequate. Surface drains should be BELOW The Factor of Safety values are provided near the bluff and all runoff should be diverted away from the bluff and footings into proper drainage facilities.
α
' φ
c'
t ϒ
' ϒ
wz
The slope angle; (inclination angle) with respect to
the horizontal plane
The effective friction angle of the soil
The effective cohesion of the soil
The total unit weight (Soil with moisture)
Submerged unit weight of the soil (Saturated unit
weight - unit weight of water)
Vertical depth of the saturated soil
) op6 OLD PARALIC LAYER 3 (Q) op6 OLD PARALIC LAYER 2 (Q F.O.S.

The unit weight of the water wϒ
Factor of Safety
1 meter = 3.28 feet
= 𝑭𝑶𝑺
𝒄 +ᇱ ) 𝜶 cos( 𝑾𝒛 𝑾 −𝜸 𝑻 𝜸 𝟐 𝝋′ tan
𝜶 cos 𝜶 sin 𝑾𝒛𝑻 𝜸
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS IS BASED ON EQUATION (1) FOR THE CALCULATED VALUES. ., Lee T.S., Sharma S., Reference: Abramson L.W
Boyce G.M., 2002, Slope Stability and Stabilziation Methods, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., l
( )
t
Universal Engineering Sciences (UES)
1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115
Escondido, CA 92026
p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com
Environmental Consulting | Geotechnical Engineering | Materials Testing & Inspections Occupational Health & Safety | Building Sciences & Code Compliance | Virtual Design Consulting July 17, 2024 UES Job No. 4830.2400013
City of Solana Beach
635 South Highway 101
Solana Beach, California 92075
Attention: Ms. Corey Andrews
(858) 720-2434
[email protected]
Subject: 3
rd Application Submittal Geotechnical Review
Bates Residence Remodel
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, California
References: At End of Document
Ms. Andrews:

As requested, Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) has reviewed the provided submittal application documents referenced at the end of this letter. The purpose of our review was to assess whether the proposed project is in substantial compliance with the City of Solana Beach’s (City) Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies.

Based on review of the submitted and referenced documents, the proposed project appears to be in general conformance with the City’s LCP policies, and no exceptions were noted.

UES’s review is based on the referenced and provided submittal documents. If the proposed improvements or referenced documents are revised or updated, or new documents are provided, they should be provided to UES for additional review and comment, as warranted.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES (UES)
Colm J. Kenny, GE #3201
Senior Engineer
Bates Residence Remodel/Application Submittal 3
rd Geotechnical Review
4830.2400013, July 17, 2024