Solana Beach City Council
September 9, 2026

DISCUSSION
On April 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-045 conditionally approving a DRP, SDP and SMAP for the demolition of the existing structures onsite, the consolidation of two lots to create one 32,762 square foot lot and for the construction of four detached building two- to three-stories in height that contain 11 market rate for sale dwelling units and two units to be deed restricted for a period of 99-years to restrict the sale to households that qualify as low income according to California Health and Safety Code. The Staff Report and meeting video can be reviewed under Item B.1 of the April 24, 2024, City Council Meeting: CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
It is anticipated that the 12-month extension would provide sufficient time for the Applicant to proceed in the process of obtaining the necessary grading and building permits and commence construction. The Applicant submitted applications for the building and grading permits that are currently under review and almost ready for issuance. They have also obtained California Coastal Commission approval. The Applicant’s request for the Time Extension is included in Attachment 2.

The Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Section 17.72.110 indicates that:

One or more (but not more than a total of four) extensions may be granted not exceeding a cumulative total of 24 months after the date the original approval of the project expires. The duration of an extension shall be in an increment of 30 days. The minimum duration of an extension shall be six months. The maximum duration of an extension shall not be more than 12 months. The duration of an extension shall be determined at the discretion of the issuing authority.

SBMC Section 17.72.110 establishes that City Council action is required to review and act on a request for an extension of a DRP/SDP when City Council was the original approving body. The City Council may extend the approval of a project if they are able to make the seven (7) required findings, which are as follows:

1. The Applicant has presented facts which establish that the applicant has timely and diligently pursued issuance of a building permit during the 24-month period following the issuance of the original approval for the project (or the different period set forth as a condition of approval of the project) or during the then current extension period;

2. Circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control have intervened and prevented the applicant from obtaining the issuance of a building permit for the project prior to expiration of the 24-month period (or the expiration date established as a condition of the approval) or during the then current extension period;

3. The application for the extension sets forth a reasonable and substantial factual basis for issuance of the extension;
Item K.2
September 9, 2026
TE26-001
13 on Stevens

4. There is a substantial factual basis to determine that the applicant will be able to perform the actions necessary to obtain issuance of a building permit prior to expiration of the requested extension;

5. The duration of the extension requested by the applicant is no longer than is reasonably necessary to perform the actions necessary to obtain the issuance of a building permit;

6. There have not been any significant changes in the general plan, applicable specific plan, if any, zoning, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to become inconsistent, incompatible, or nonconforming therewith; and

7. The granting of an extension shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

There have not been any significant changes to the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance since the original approval date that would affect the project.

The draft Resolution of Approval has been prepared by Staff for the consideration of the City Council. The draft Resolution is based upon the information provided in this report.

The City Council may direct Staff to modify Resolution 2026-093 to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a part of the public hearing process. In the alternative, if the City Council determines the request is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for an action to be taken at a subsequent City Council meeting.

Notices of a Public Hearing for this project were mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site more than 10 days prior to the City Council date. As of the date of preparation of this Staff Report, no phone calls, letters, or emails have been received by Staff in regard to the extension request.

Staff has also had discussions with the Applicant regarding their willingness to offer the City of Solana Beach the first option to purchase the two affordable units. It would be the City’s intent to purchase the units and be flexible with those units to best meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The Applicant has provided the attached signed acknowledgement (see Attachment 3). No action on the two affordable units is before the Council at this time.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
Time Extensions are not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council found the original project exempt pursuant to the 2024 State of California CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.

FISCAL IMPACT N/A
Item K.2
September 9, 2026
TE26-001
13 on Stevens

WORK PLAN N/A

OPTIONS
• Approve staff recommendation.
• Provide alternative directions.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council disclosures, Receive Public testimony, Close the Public Hearing.

2. If the City Council can make the required findings, adopt Resolution 2026-093, approving the request for a Time Extension for approvals and entitlements in Case No. DRP22-003, SDP22-001, and SMAP22-001 and setting the expiration date as April 24, 2027.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2026-093

2. Applicant’s Extension Request

3. Acknowledgement
Item K.2
RESOLUTION 2026-093

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT, STRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF 13 FOR SALE DWELLING UNITS IN

FOUR DETACHED STRUCTURES AND WTH ATTACHED

FIRST FLOOR TWO CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS AT 718-732 STEVENS AVENUE, SOLANA
BEACH
APPLICANT: 3981 Garfield Street, LLC
ADDRESS: 718-732 Stevens Avenue
APN: 298-164-10 & 13
WHEREAS, 3981 Garfield Street, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”) has submitted a request for a Time Extension of the approved Development Review Permit (DRP), Major Subdivision (SMAP), and Structure Development Permit (SDP) pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning), of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-045 approving the project at the regularly scheduled April 24, 2024, City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the discretionary approval expired on April 24, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a request for a 12-month extension of the project approval pursuant to the provisions of SBMC 17.72.110 of the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the time extension request; and
WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of SBMC

17.72.030 of the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the request for a Time Extension; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach found that a Time Extension Request is not a project according to the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; however, the City Council found the original project exempt pursuant to the 2024 State of California CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 on April 24, 2024; and Item K.2
Resolution 2026-093
TE26-001
13 on Stevens Time Extension

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 12-month Time Extension for a Development Review Permit (DRP), Major Subdivision (SMAP), and Structure Development Permit (SDP) originally approved on April 24, 2024, with the adoption of Resolution 2024-045, for the demolition of the existing development and to construct four detached twoand three-story buildings consisting of 13 dwelling units with attached private 2- car garages, four guest parking spaces, associated site improvements including cut and fill grading, drainage improvements, landscaping, and common open space at 718-732 Stevens Avenue, Solana Beach, is conditionally approved based on the following:

3. FINDINGS:

A. In accordance with Section 17.72.110 (Lapse of Approval and Extensions) of the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code, the City Council finds the following:

I. The Applicant has presented facts which establish that the Applicant has timely and diligently pursued issuance of a building permit during the 24-month period following the issuance of the original approval for the project;
The Applicant has submitted applications for a grading permit and a building permit and they are under review at this time. They have received a Notice of Intent to Approve a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.

II. Circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control have intervened and prevented the Applicant from obtaining the issuance of a building permit for the project prior to expiration of the 24-month period following the issuance of the original approval for the project; To Be Completed
Item K.2
Resolution 2026-093
TE26-001
13 on Stevens Time Extension

III. The application for the extension sets forth a reasonable and substantial factual basis for issuance of the time extension; To be Completed
IV. There is a substantial factual basis to determine that the Applicant will be able to perform the actions necessary to obtain issuance of a building permit prior to expiration of the requested extension; The Applicant will be able to obtain necessary permits and commence construction within 12 months.

V. The duration of the time extension requested by the Applicant is not longer than is reasonably necessary to perform the actions necessary to obtain the issuance of a building permit;
The 12-month extension is sufficient time for Applicant to obtain grading and building permits and commence construction of the subject project.

VI. There have not been any significant changes in the general plan, applicable specific plan, if any, zoning, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to become inconsistent, incompatible, or nonconforming therewith; and There have not been any changes to the applicable regulations that would impact the approval of the subject project.

VII. The granting of an extension shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

1. CONDITIONS:

Prior to use or development of the property in reliance on this permit, the Applicant shall provide for and adhere to the conditions of the original project approval of Resolution 2024-045.

Item K.2
Resolution 2026-093
TE26-001
13 on Stevens Time Extension

1. 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 1.16 and 1.18 in addition to any applicable revocation proceedings.

2. EXPIRATION: The project will expire 12 months from the date of expiration of the original project approval, unless the Applicant has obtained building permits and have commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to completion.

3. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT: The Applicant 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 Applicant 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 Applicant 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 Applicant 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 Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicant.

NOTICE TO APPLICANT: 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.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 9th day of September, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
Item K.2
Resolution 2026-093
TE26-001
13 on Stevens Time Extension

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk Item K.2
718 - 732 Stevens Ave., Solana Beach, CA 92075
3981 Garfield Street LLC
P.O. Box 408, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
619-231-9905 Applicant's Rep.
[email protected] 619-857-6618 Applicant's Rep.

See attached pages for Section B responses.

ATTACHMENT 2
Item K.2
See attached pages for Section b responses.

See attached pages for Section B responses.
07/02/2026
Matthew Gomes, Applicant's Rep.

Item K.2
Item K.2
7/2/2026
City of Solana Beach
Project Extension Application
Section B

1. Provide a detailed factual description and explanation of the reasons why a building permit was not issued prior to the expiration of the original approval or preceding extension and the specific reason(s) the extension is necessary; the applicant’s request for a specific time period for the extension.

It took about 6 months from our DRP resolution dated April 24, 2024 to get the construction documents for architectural, structural and MEP ready for submittal. The architect initiated the submittal on 10/11/2024, the City responded on 10/29/2024 with submittal instructions. The building construction plans were officially submitted for the Initial Planning Review on 11/11/2025. Planning comments on the initial planning review were received on 12/9/2024. After some back and forth communication with the planning reviewer, the building construction plans were resubmitted for the initial planning review on 1/23/2025. After some miscommunication between the architect and city, the plans that were submitted on 1/23/2025 were routed for the first full plan check review. The first plan review comments were received on 4/15/2025 for building, structural and MEP but were missing fire review comments. The building construction plans with responses to the first review comments (not including fire review) were resubmitted on 5/13/2025. The second plan review comments were received on 6/4/2025. After some back and forth with the structural reviewer and their supervisor at Interwest regarding ADA accessibility, the building construction plans with responses to the second review comments were resubmitted on 8/27/2025. The third plan review comments, with a couple of comments from the structural reviewer that hinged on the grading permit and one comment from the fire reviewer, were received on 9/17/2025 and it was noted that engineering had conditioned that the building permit be issued with the grading permit. During the grading permit process, which began on 10/17/2024 and is ongoing as of 7/2/2026, it was determined by the Solana Beach building official and the building official from Interwest that revisions to some site amenities for ADA access that were made pursuant to the structural review where not required and that the location of the ADA accessible units needed to change. After receiving this information regarding ADA accessibility on 2/6/2026, the architect coordinated with the civil engineer and revised the architectural and grading plans for the building permit and grading permit and resubmitted for both permit reviews. As of 6/17/2026 the City of Solana Beach’s online permit status shows that Building and Fire are approved, Engineering is approved with conditions and planning and the associated grading permit is incomplete. The civil engineer of record, Christensen Engineering, is continuing to process the grading permit but is experiencing delays in Item K.2
7/2/2026
dealing with the San Elijo Joint Powers District regarding the connection to their recycled/reclaimed water system. We are requesting a one year extension from the previous expiration date of 4/24/2026 in order to ensure that all aspects of the grading and building permits can be finalized, approved and issued and as demonstrated above, the project has made steady progress from the date of approval but simply involves many moving parts and entities that must approve the project independently and collectively.

2. A detailed description of the actions that will be taken during the specific requested extension period that justify the requested time period of the extension and that will result in the timely issuance of a building permit for the project before the extension expires.

Since all other disciplines of the building permit have been approved, the architect will work closely with the Solana Beach Planner to ensure that everything they need to approve and issue the building permit is completed and provided in a timely manner.

The owner of the project will submit the Affordable Housing Agreement for final approval given that the City of Solana Beach has already verbally approved the final draft that now needs to simply be filled out and signed and returned for recording.

Given that the city planner expressed this is likely the only remaining item that is holding up their approval on the building permit. The civil engineer will continue to process the grading permit and finalize the plans to connect to the San Elijo Joint Powers District’s recycled/reclaimed water system.

3. A detailed timeline for the actions that will be taken during the requested extension period.

The timeline is already underway with the project back in Plan Check already, the Civil Engineer almost ready to submit to confirm the recycled water requirement and the Owner having already received a verbal approval on the Affordable Housing Agreement it would be the applicant’s intention to have every item signed off within just a couple months at the most. Given how close the remaining items are to being approved, this should be attainable with the requested extension and move this Affordable Housing infill project into Construction!
Item K.2
ATTACHMENT 3
Item K.2
Stevens 13
Time Extension
TE26-002 (DRP/SDP/SMAP)
City Council Meeting - September 9, 2026
Stevens 13 - K.2
Item K.2
Background
September 9, 2026 Stevens 13 - K.2
Slide 2
Project Description: Approved April 24, 2024, to demolish the existing structures onsite and construct 11 market rate for-sale dwelling units and two units to be deed restricted to be sold to households that qualify as low income.

The development would consist of one (1) detached two-story building and three (3) detached three-story buildings with main level attached private 2- car garages for each unit and 4 additional guest parking spaces, grading in the amounts of 1,140 cubic yards of cut, 360 cubic yards of fill and 780 cubic yards of export, landscaping, and associated site improvements.

The maximum height of the development is proposed at 29.98 feet above the proposed grade with the highest point at 61.22 MSL.

Item K.2
• It is anticipated that the 12-month time extension would provide sufficient time to complete the following:
- Record the affordable housing agreement
- Record the final map
- Obtain necessary building and grading permits
• The Applicant has already received Coastal Commission Approval • Building/Grading Permits are currently under review and close to being ready to issue.
• The Applicant has signed an acknowledgement that they are willing to offer the City the first option to purchase the affordable units.

September 9, 2026
Stevens 13 – K.2
Project Status
Slide 3
Item K.2
In order to approve a Time Extension, the City Council needs to be able to make the required findings:

1. The applicant has presented facts which establish that the applicant has timely and diligently pursued issuance of a building permit during the 24 month period following the issuance of the original approval for the project (or the different period set forth as a condition of approval of the project) or during the then current extension period;

2. Circumstances beyond the applicant’s control have intervened and prevented the applicant from obtaining the issuance of a building permit for the project prior to expiration of the 24 month period (or the expiration date established as a condition of the approval) or during the then current extension period;

3. The application for the extension sets forth a reasonable and substantial factual basis for issuance of the extension;
Stevens 13 - K.2
Findings
Slide 4 September 9, 2026
Item K.2

4. There is a substantial factual basis to determine that the applicant will be able to perform the actions necessary to obtain issuance of a building permit prior to expiration of the requested extension;

5. The duration of the extension requested by the applicant is not longer than is reasonably necessary to perform the actions necessary to obtain the issuance of a building permit;

6. There have not been any significant changes in the general plan, applicable specific plan, if any, zoning, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to become inconsistent, incompatible, or nonconforming therewith; and

7. The granting of an extension shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Stevens 13 - K.2
Findings
Slide 5 September 9, 2026
Item K.2

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

2. If the City Council can make the required findings, adopt Resolution 2026-093, approving the request for a Time Extension for approvals and entitlements in Case No. DRP22-003, SDP22- 001, and SMAP22-001 and setting the expiration date as April 24, 2027.

TE26-002
718-732 Stevens Avenue
Staff Recommendation
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Stevens 13 - K.2
Slide 6
Item K.2
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # L.1.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 9, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Fire Department – Bret Davidson, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Fire Presentation – Importance of Response Times

BACKGROUND
The Cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach provide fire suppression, emergency medical, fire prevention, and related emergency services to their respective communities through a shared fire management structure. As part of the Cities’ ongoing evaluation of fire service levels and emergency response capabilities, staff periodically review response-time performance against nationally recognized standards and accreditation benchmarks.

Response times are an important component of effective emergency response, particularly for structure fires, vegetation fires, and medical emergencies where the first few minutes can significantly affect outcomes. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 Standard provides nationally recognized benchmarks for career fire departments, including targets for dispatch, turnout, travel, and overall response times. The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE), through its Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) accreditation model, provides an additional framework for evaluating response performance through local risk assessment, baseline measurements, and benchmark comparisons.

Staff will provide a presentation to the City Council regarding 2025 annual response-time data which was reviewed and the Solana Beach Fire Department’s performance in relation to these established standards and benchmarks. The review considers dispatch time, turnout time, first-unit response time, and overall response-force capability, as well as geographic travel-time considerations within Solana Beach and surrounding areas. This item is presented to Council for information only.

DISCUSSION
The presentation is intended to inform City Council of response-time standards which are intended to provide an objective measure of the reliability and effectiveness of emergency response services. For structure fires, rapid response is particularly important because fire growth can be rapid and delays in the arrival of the first unit can increase the potential for significant property damage, occupant injury, and fire spread. Response times are also an important consideration for vegetation fires, where the ability to quickly establish an initial Item L.1
Sept 09, 2026
Fire Presentation – Importance of Response Times

attack can help limit fire growth and reduce the potential for a small fire to develop into a larger regional incident.

Response time is similarly critical for medical emergencies. For cardiac and traumatic emergencies, early intervention can significantly affect patient outcomes. The ability to quickly dispatch, mobilize, and place appropriately staffed emergency personnel on scene is therefore an important component of the City's overall emergency service delivery system.

The NFPA 1710 standard and CPSE/CFAI accreditation framework provide two complementary methods for evaluating response performance. NFPA 1710 establishes specific response-time and staffing benchmarks, generally measured at the 90th percentile, while the CPSE/CFAI model focuses on establishing a local baseline, identifying gaps between current performance and desired benchmarks, and developing service levels that reflect community risk and population characteristics. The 90th percentile is particularly useful because it provides a measure of reliability and identifies the time within which 90 percent of emergency responses are completed, rather than allowing an average response time to mask longer response times experienced by residents during the most delayed incidents.

For 2025, Solana Beach staff reviewed four primary response-time measures: dispatch time, turnout time, first-unit response time, and full first-alarm response capability. The Solana Beach data will be compared with the applicable NFPA 1710 and CPSE/CFAI benchmarks to identify areas where the City's current performance meets established standards and areas where additional improvement may be warranted as presented Geographic travel-time analysis also demonstrates the importance of station location, deployment, and staffing. Areas closest to the Solana Beach fire station generally have shorter travel times, while response times increase as units travel farther from the station and into surrounding jurisdictions. Although automatic and mutual aid resources can provide additional assistance, those resources are dependent on availability and cannot always be relied upon to provide the same level of immediate response as locally available personnel.

Vegetation fires provide an additional example of the importance of timely initial response.

Regional fire service benchmarks generally seek to limit vegetation fires to less than three acres 90 percent of the time, while the State's Cal Fire benchmark is to limit fires to less than ten acres 90 percent of the time. Achieving these objectives requires fire resources to arrive quickly, establish an effective initial attack, and coordinate additional resources as needed. Battalion Chiefs play an important role in this effort by providing incident command and coordinating regional resources, including aerial firefighting resources, when conditions warrant.

The presentation is intended to inform City Council on 2025 response-time review provides the City Council and the Solana Beach's current emergency response performance.

No formal action is requested at this time.

Item L.1
Sept 09, 2026
Fire Presentation – Importance of Response Times

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact regarding this item. It is informational only.

WORK PLAN
N/A

OPTIONS
• Receive staff report.
• Provide alternative directions.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the City Council receive and file presentation. _________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Item L.1

UPDATE TO CITY COUNCIL
Response-Time
Performance Review
NFPA 1710 standards and CPSE
accreditation benchmarks, compared to
Solana Beach Fire Department
performance.

Solana Beach City Council · September 9, 2026
2025 Annual Report Data
Item L.1
Response Time Matters
Why response-time standards matter to our
community for Fires
– Fire doubles in size every 30–60 seconds.

Minutes decide whether a home is saved and
occupants survive.
– Fire Department service levels reduce
homeowner insurance premiums. An ISO rating
from a 2 to a 9 would increase fire insurance
costs 33% to 50%.
– Fire Damage over 30% = Total Loss and 78% of
businesses relocate.
– Fire Response Times affect conflagration risks
associated with wildland fires.

SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 02
Item L.1
Response Time Matters
Why response-time standards matter to our
community for Medical Emergencies
SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 03
– Cardiac save rates decrease 10% for every min
without CPR intervention.
– Military Study on Trauma demonstrates that
10% to 25% of Trauma Deaths die within the
first 10 mins from unsurvivable catastrophic
trauma. Conversely immediate care within 10
mins increases survivability 85% to 90% for
people that survive that initial trauma.
(Combat Casualty Care Research).

Item L.1

THE TWO FRAMEWORKS
Two respected yardsticks for the same
question
NFPA 1710
The national standard
– Sets minimum time and
staffing targets for career
departments.
– Fixed thresholds, measured at
the 90th percentile.
– A published bar to measure
every department against.

CPSE / CFAI
The accreditation model
– Audits how you measure and
improve — sets no fixed
numbers.
– Requires a baseline-vsbenchmark gap analysis.
– Targets adjust for local risk
and population density.

SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 04
Item L.1

HOW THE CLOCK IS MEASURED
Anatomy of total response time
(NFPA 1710, fire)
Call processing
≤ 60 sec
911 answered to units
notified
+
Turnout time
≤ 80 sec
Notified to wheels rolling
+
Travel time
≤ 240 sec
En route to on scene
(1st engine)
First-unit total response time (90th pctl) = ≈ 6 min 20 sec turnout + travel = 5:20
SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 05
Item L.1

SCOPE OF THE COMPARISON
Four metrics, measured the same way
01 Dispatch time
Call answered →
crews notified
02 Turnout time
Notified →
apparatus en
route
03 Response
time (90%)
First unit arriving
on scene
04 Total
response —
16 crew
Full first alarm,
structure fires
SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 06
Item L.1

READING THE NUMBERS HONESTLY
Why the 90th percentile beats the average
The average hides the
extremes
6 min
average response
An average of 6 minutes still
means half of all calls took
longer — some reaching 12
minutes or more. Those outliers
are real emergencies.

The 90th percentile tells the
truth
90%
of calls met the target
It states plainly that 9 of every 10
responses met the standard — a
transparent measure of reliability
endorsed by CFAI and built into
NFPA standards.

SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 07
Item L.1
1 Minute Green
3 Minute Yellow
5 Minute Orange
10 Minute Red

DEL MAR FIRE DEPARTMENT
08 SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
Item L.1

SIDE- BY- SIDE BENCHMARKS
The comparison at a glance
Metric NFPA 1710
(90%) CPSE / CFAI Solana '25
Dispatch (call
processing) ≤ 60 sec Baseline vs. benchmark
123 sec
(2:03)
Turnout time ≤ 80 sec 90th pctl, density-adj. 132 sec
(2:12)
First-unit response ≤ 240 sec Total response, 90th
pctl
476 sec
(7:56)
Full alarm — 16 crew ≤ 480 sec Response force, 90th
pctl Not Available
Solana Beach '25 columns are referenced from the Annual Report data.

SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 10
Item L.1
Vegetation Fires & High Hazard Severity Zones
Regional Benchmark is to keep the
fire less than 3 acres 90% of the time
Cal Fire State Benchmark is to keep
fires less than 10 acres 90% of the
time.

In order to accomplish this benchmark,
we must be able to have first units arrive
on scene quickly to keep the fire small.

We need Battalion Chiefs to coordinate
Regional Air Resources and response
SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 11
Item L.1
Questions
The Solana Beach Fire Department is proud
to serve the citizens of Solana Beach
SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 12
Item L.1
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # L.2.
+

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 9, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works and Engineering Department, Austin Frisby, Principal Civil Engineer | City Engineer and Dion Akers, Internal Compliance & Government Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Project Update
BACKGROUND:

The Lomas Santa Fe Corridor is the City’s primary east–west arterial and provides access to schools, parks, the library, transit, and commercial areas. The Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Improvement Project (Santa Helena to Highland Drive) will construct new sidewalks, a multi-use trail, bicycle lanes, landscaped medians, pedestrian enhancements, and road paving and drainage improvements.

The Project is budgeted at $7.5 million and is funded through a $7.0 million Community Project Funding / Congressionally Directed Spending (CPFCDSL-5445(008)) grant, secured by Representative Mike Levin, and through the City’s Transportation Impact Fee and Measure S funds.

This item before City Council is to provide an update on project schedule and community outreach.

DISCUSSION:

As construction on the Lomas Santa Fe East Corridor Improvements Project approaches, the City and its construction manager, Kleinfelder, are implementing a comprehensive communications plan to keep residents, businesses, and stakeholders informed throughout construction.

Schedule & Construction Phasing
Pre-construction activities will be ongoing through September and construction activities will begin in October through late summer 2027. The construction contract includes Item L.2
September 9, 2026
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Improvements Update

additional non-working days on holidays and local special events to minimize community impacts. No work is currently anticipated at night or on weekends.

Construction activities will be performed in three (3) major phases, each made up of subphases to facilitate the work and maintain access. Work will generally proceed from east (Highland Drive) to west (Santa Helena) within each phase. Each sub-phase will be completed before the next begins, maintaining a Finish-to-Start relationship between successive sub-phases, unless otherwise approved by the City.

The work will be sequenced to minimize disruption to the traveling public and to maintain required access and traffic control throughout construction. At least one (1) travel lane in each direction along Lomas Santa Fe will remain open throughout construction. During two (2) brief work phases, residents of the Via Mil Cumbres community will be detoured to one of two available egress routes.

A breakdown of the major phases is provided below.
 Phase 1 - Median Improvements
o Highland Drive to Camino de las Villas-East
o Camino de las Villas-East to Camino de las Villas-West o Camino de las Villas-West to Santa Helena
 Phase 2 – New Sidewalk Construction Along South Side of Lomas Santa Fe o Highland Drive to Camino de las Villas-East
o Camino de las Villas-East to Camino de las Villas-West o Camino de las Villas-West to Santa Helena
 Phase 3 – North Side Roadway Improvements (Cross-Gutters, Multi-Use Trail, and Retaining Walls):
o Via Mil Cumbres-East (West Cross Gutter)
o Via Mil Cumbres-East (East Cross Gutter)
o Via Mil Cumbres-West (East Cross Gutter)
o Via Mil Cumbres-West (West Cross Gutter)
o Highland Drive to Via Mil Cumbres-East
o Via Mil Cumbres-East to Via Mil Cumbres-West
o Via Mil Cumbres-West to Santa Helena
Community Outreach
As part of the construction management contract, approved by City Council on May 27, 2026, Kleinfelder will provide public outreach services throughout construction. Kleinfelder and City staff have developed a comprehensive communications and outreach plan for the project to provide clear, timely, and accessible communication throughout construction.

The goal of the outreach is to help the community understand project impacts, prepare for changing conditions, and stay connected with the City and project team. The public Item L.2
September 9, 2026
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Improvements Update

outreach program will engage residents and businesses along and near the Lomas Santa Fe Drive corridor, those impacted by the project, and individuals who have joined the project’s listserv database.

A dedicated project webpage, email listserv, and call line have been created for stakeholders to receive updates, ask questions, and report concerns:
 Webpage: cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov/LSFE. Project information, regular updates and listserv sign-up.
 Email Address: [email protected]. Dedicated email account for sending and receiving updates and information.
 Call Line: (858) 723-8511. Dedicated phone line for receiving constituent feedback and questions.
 Smartphone App: Solana Beach My Community App allows constituents to provide project feedback and report concerns.

The outreach plan includes:
 Project Webpage: Centralized source for schedules, maps, FAQs, and contact information.
 Project E-Newsletters and E-Blasts: Stakeholders can sign-up for the email listserv at the project webpage for updates that will be sent prior to each phase, including upcoming construction activities, traffic impacts, and schedule. The newsletter and EBlasts will also be used for time-sensitive information.  Citywide Communications: Regular updates about construction activities, traffic changes, milestones, and other information affecting the broader community will be distributed through the City’s newsletter and social media.  Stakeholder Coordination: Direct outreach and mailers with affected residents, businesses, property owners, community organizations, and other stakeholders when construction activities may significantly affect access or operations.  Construction Notices: Construction contractor will provide five-day advance notification to residents and businesses directly affected by construction, including driveway restrictions, parking changes, access impacts, noise, or nearby work.  Community Meetings: In-person community meetings following the completion of each major work phase to provide project updates.
 Construction Signage and Electronic Message Boards: Highly visible, real-time information to motorists and other roadway users regarding closures, detours, changing traffic conditions, and major construction activities, as well as on-site signage which includes project details, funding, and contact information.

Item L.2
September 9, 2026
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Improvements Update

 Press Releases and Milestone Communications: Major construction milestones, significant traffic changes, project achievements, and other information of broader community interest.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

This item is an informational update on construction outreach and does not constitute a new approval or entitlement. The Project itself is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as filed under Document Number 37-2024-0270 with the State of California. Because construction of this project is partially funded with federal funds, environmental clearance is also required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has delegated this authority to Caltrans; a Categorical Exclusion was originally approved by Caltrans in April 2024, and re-validated in May 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this informational update. Public outreach and communications services are included within the scope of the two-year construction management contract with Kleinfelder, approved by City Council on May 27, 2026.

WORK PLAN:

The Lomas Santa Fe Corridor Project is included as Item 2.1.1 under Transportation and Mobility Priorities in the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Council Work Plan.

OPTIONS:
 Receive update, discuss, and provide direction.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the staff update regarding community outreach for the Lomas Santa Fe – East Construction project.

2. Provide direction on outreach activities.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Item L.2
Item L.2
I could go on and on, but for sake of wrapping this up, I do have some alternative suggestions.
1) close only 1 lane on the less heavy side and keep 2 lanes open on the heavily trafficed side daily. That would require the city to moved barriers from one lane to another twice a day for the morning rush and the afternoon rushes This would give the cars the ability to get through that section of road more easily during all the construction.
2) dispense with the decorated median between the lanes. This area is already beautiful and does not need to cut off even more of the lanes in an unneeded beautification effort.
3) Keep the bike lane that is being added only on one side and have it be a separate lane and not part of one of the two lanes going each way. That will slow the traffic down even more, and the huge majority of travelers on this road are cars.
4) Dispense with a 'trail'. I haved lived here 18 years; am on LSF daily, and have probably seen one or two people walking the sidewalk, let along a trail, a week. The steep slope discourages people from walking it, as many people are older here, and the younger ones skim along on golf carts. So an updated sidewalk would be helpgful, but I don't think we need a trail in addition. Think of who uses the road now. The answer is mainly cars and trucks. And yet you are widening the things that are hardly used at the expense of those who really need the street to get somewhere.

That makes no sense to me. This street is for use as a thoroughfare to get from point A to point B and not to stroll along and enjoy the view. The view kids will have even more danger crossing streets with the multitude of angry drivers.
5) The two major side streets which can get people off the LSF between Highland and the 5 will be swarming with cars coming through to get out of the construction. The south side of Highland and my street, Sun Valley Rd., will be the most used. Sun Valley Rd is a quiet, residential street in a beautiful setting where people are serenly walking, pushing baby strollers and golf carts, and walking dogs all day long. That peace and quiet and serenity will be replaced by people racing down the street to cut through. At least the south side of Highland has speed bumps. Sun Valley Rd does not and cars will be speeding. It will become a very dangerous street to be on. is of cars!! Put the extra money into residential areas, not thoroughfares.

Streamline and improve efficiency on LSF for what it is intended for. 5) Add speed bumps along Sun Valley Road. This will discourage those cutting through to slow down and respect what the street is really meant for.

Item L.2
Enough! I have said my piece.

I know how hard you all work, and I applaud that and thank you for your attention to this beautiful city, But lets not just "figure out how to use the money we have been allotted" and come up with a plan that will be appropriate for the stretch of land you are addressing.

Thank you for listening,
Paulette Cabral
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Item L.2
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East
Improvements Project Update
CPFCDSL 5445(008)
(Item L.2)
September 9, 2026
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 1
Item L.2
Tonight's Agenda
1 Project Refresh
Overview of project limits & scope of work.
4 Community Outreach
Public Outreach Plan and Program
3 Schedule & Construction Phasing
Pre-Construction Activities, Construction Phasing, Overall Project Schedule 2 Owner’s Representative Introduction – Kleinfelder Construction Services Introduction of City’s Construction Management & Inspection Firm Overview
September 9, 2026
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 2
Item L.2
Lomas Santa Fe-East
Project Limits
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 3
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.2
Benefits of Roundabouts
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 4
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.2
Purpose: Renovate Lomas Santa Fe Drive by making a safer and more accessible roadway for cyclists and pedestrians.

Project Overview
Constructing a concrete multi-use path and
enhanced bike safety features.

Bike & Pedestrian
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 5
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
WHAT’S COMING
New north-side multi-use path & south-side sidewalk
4-Lanes with Class II bike lanes in both directions
ADA-compliant curb ramps
▰ Roadway reconstruction & pavement improvements
◆ New retaining wall near Santa Helena / Las Banderas
Storm drain & water-quality improvements
Raised medians + native, drought-tolerant landscaping
Signing, striping & traffic signal modifications
Item L.2
Pavement Management Program
Contract
Contractor: Tri-Group Construction
Engineer’s Estimate: $6,957,398
Contract Value: $6,740,708
Contingency (10%): $675,000
Contract Duration: 220 WD’s
Construction
Management
Project Funded Through:

CPFCDSL Grant (Federal) for $7M
Measure S Funds
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF)
Schedule: October 2026 – Late
Summer 2027
Hours: 8am-5:30pm (M-F)
Length: 0.93 miles of multi-use
trail (similar to CRT)
AC: Full-width reconstruction of AC
Storm: Storm Drain Replacements
Project Facts
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 6
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Firm: Kleinfelder Construction
Services
Contract Value: $979,812
Scope:

Full-Time Inspection
Half-Time Resident Engineer
Part-Time Project Manager
Materials Testing
Community Outreach
Project Details
Item L.2
Introduction to KCS
Deep Local Roots
Founded and

Headquartered in

Offices
Employees
100+
3,100+

SAN DIEGO
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 7
Item L.2
Project Team & Services Provided
Anna Finlay
Public Outreach Manager
Jessica Ochoa
Public Outreach Lead
Greg Gomez
Project Manager / Technical
Advisor
Hassan Mustafa
Construction Manager / Resident
Engineer
Rex Crabtree
Construction Inspector
Mark Plotnikiewicz
Deputy Project Manager
Services Provided
• Construction Management
• Construction Inspection
• Material Sampling & Testing
• Labor Compliance
• Public Outreach
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 8
Item L.2
Traffic Control & Safety
• Detour & Construction
Signage Maintenance
• Weekly Traffic Control
Coordination with the City
• Proactive Communication
with Community
Key Focus Points

Continuous Access
• Emergency Services
• Cyclists
• Pedestrians
• Local Businesses
• Schools
• Events

Proactive Outreach
• Email & Helpline
Correspondence
• Email Notifications
• Website Updates
• Community Outreach
Meeting
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 9
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.2
Schedule & Construction Phasing
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 10
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Finish-to-start sequencing Maintain access / minimize disruption One travel lane each direction 1 PHASE 1

MEDIANS
Highland Dr. → Camino de las Villas East
Camino de las Villas East → Camino de las
Villas West
Camino de las Villas West → Santa Helena
2 PHASE 2

SOUTH SIDE
Highland Dr. → Camino de las Villas East
Camino de las Villas East → Camino de las
Villas West
Camino de las Villas West → Santa Helena
3 PHASE 3

NORTH SIDE
Via Mil Cumbres East — West Cross Gutter
Via Mil Cumbres East — East Cross Gutter
Via Mil Cumbres West — East Cross Gutter
Via Mil Cumbres West — West Cross Gutter
Highland Dr. → Via Mil Cumbres East
Via Mil Cumbres East → Via Mil Cumbres West
Via Mil Cumbres West → Santa Helena
EAST
(HIGHLAND)
WEST
(SANTA HELENA)
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS OCT. 2026 → LATE SUMMER 2027

SCHEDULE PRINCIPLES

WORK FLOW
Item L.2
Community Outreach
[email protected]
(858) 723-8511
cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov/LSFE
Email
Helpline
Project Webpage
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 11
1st Meeting – City Council
Following each major phase
Community Meetings
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Outreach Plan
• Project Webpage
• Project E-Newsletters
• Citywide Communications
• Stakeholder Coordination
• Construction Notices
• Community Meetings
• Construction Signage
• Press Releases
• Milestone Communications
Item L.2
Initial Outreach – Project Mailer
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 12
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.2
There is no fiscal impact associated with this informational update.

Public outreach and communications services are included within the scope of the two-year construction management contract with Kleinfelder, approved by City Council on May 27, 2026.

Fiscal Impact
Slide 13
Regular City Council Meeting Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2) September 9, 2026
Item L.2
Recommended Actions
1 Receive the Staff update regarding community outreach for the Lomas Santa Fe – East construction project.

Recommendations
Lomas Santa Fe Corridor East Update (L.2)
Slide 14
2 Provide direction on outreach activities.

Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.2
Questions?
City Council Meeting – September 9, 2026
Item L.2
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # L.3.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 9, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works and Engineering Department, Austin Frisby, Principal Civil Engineer | City Engineer
SUBJECT: Evaluating Alternative Surface Materials for City Facilities and the Public Right-of-Way
BACKGROUND:

Decomposed granite (DG) has long been used in the City for as a surface for parks, trails, and street parkways. It is affordable, permeable, and well-suited to natural coastal character. As the City looks to improve the long-term performance of these surfaces, staff will present optional materials that complement DG where site conditions call for a more durable solution.

This item is before the City Council to:
• Receive the staff update regarding alternatives to decomposed granite (DG) surfaces within City-owned facilities and public right-of-way parkway areas. • Provide direction on a preferred policy framework for evaluating alternative surface materials.
• Direct staff to continue refining a pilot program to evaluate selected materials at representative locations and provide feedback on the evaluation metrics to Council at a future meeting.

DISCUSSION:

Solana Beach's natural coastal setting is reflected throughout the City's parks, trails, and neighborhoods. Decomposed granite (DG) has served as the standard surface for parkways, park pathways, and parking areas due to its natural appearance, permeability, and affordability.

In older residential neighborhoods, many streets were built without curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Parkways serve as pedestrian walkways and informal parking. Where developed, the City has required a mountable concrete curb and approximately ten feet of bonded and compacted DG. As redevelopment occurs incrementally, improved and unimproved frontages coexist, and parkway treatments function as both interim improvements and components of a long-term buildout strategy. Under the California Item L.3
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials

Streets and Highways Code §5610 and Solana Beach Municipal Code 11.16.050 property owners are responsible for maintaining the parkway adjacent to their property. Residents have requested other surface options, particularly for sloped lots.

On April 24, 2024, staff presented an overview of DG surface performance and alternative materials to the City Council. Council directed staff to evaluate alternatives with a focus on balancing aesthetics, environmental performance, safety, and long-term maintenance.

Specifically, it was requested of staff to identify possible materials that may have an aesthetic similar to DG surfacing.

Staff have developed a draft framework organized by slope and intended use, providing a practical basis for material selection that preserves DG where it performs well and introduces more durable options where conditions warrant. Establishing a standardized material palette will enhance visual consistency throughout the City and provide clear standards for installation, maintenance, and long-term performance. Standardization will also improve coordination among stakeholders working within the public right-of-way, support more efficient asset management, and reduce potential liability.

Slope as the Basis for Material Selection
On flat or gently sloped ground, DG compacts well and holds up with routine maintenance.

However, there is a need to consider slope, drainage, and runoff when choosing a material.

As slopes increase, so do the demands on the surface, and the material choice makes a difference in durability and maintenance requirements. A well-drained flat site may perform better than a steeper one, and loose materials should generally not be used where there is concentrated runoff and an adjacency to public storm drain inlets. The following table summarizes the recommended approach based on slope and use:

Tier Parkway Material Relative
Cost
Tier 1: Traditional /
Lower Intensity
Surfaces
Decomposed Granite with Stabilizer $
DG with G3 Stabilizer $$
Resin Bound Aggregate $$
Tier 2: Enhanced
Natural Appearing
Surfaces Soil-Stabilized Native Surface / PolyPavement $ GraniteCrete $$$
Soil-Stabilized Native Surface / PolyPavement with
Aggregate Base $
Concrete Finishes (Colored, Stamped, Sand
Finished, Exposed Aggregate) $$$
Pavers $$
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers $$$
Tier 3: Hardened /
Engineered
Surfaces
Concrete Grid Pavers / Turf Block $$
Item L.3
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials

Slope thresholds of 3.0% and 4.5% are supported in California Building Code for accessibility standards and erosion control guidance. In neighboring coastal cities such as Encinitas and Carlsbad, slopes above 4.0% to 5.0% percent typically trigger harder surface treatments.

On corridors identified in the Circulation Element for future improvements (road widening, bike lanes, sidewalks, parking, etc.) material selection is important to account for with respect to the City's long-term right-of-way plans. While property owners are required to enter into an Encroachment Maintenance and Removal Agreement (EMRA) for frontage improvements within the City’s rights-of-way, materials should be easy to remove or modify should improvements in the future warrant.

The recommended thresholds that staff will be presenting to Council are intended as practical benchmarks. Higher-tier materials may be necessary on flatter slopes where there is concentrated runoff, adjacency to storm drain inlets, or a history of erosion/sediment control issues.

City Facilities Pilot Program
City-owned parks, trails, and community centers are the first priority for applying this framework. Locations such as El Viento Pocket Park and Fletcher Cove Community Center are included in the FY 2025/26 Work Plan for surface improvements and represent the range of slopes, uses, and community needs this framework is designed to address.

Applying the framework at City facilities first allows staff to evaluate higher-performance materials under real conditions before extending the same options to private property owners. It also ensures City-maintained surfaces continue to meet safety and accessibility standards. Staff recommends testing selected materials over a minimum of one year to observe performance through at least one full wet and dry season cycle. The pilot will provide more information on cost, installation practices, and maintenance requirements.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

This action is not a project under CEQA pursuant to Section 15060 (c) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Individual Pilot Program projects supported by this item will undergo separate environmental review, as required, prior to implementation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no specific budget request as part of this item.

The proposed use of alternative parkway materials will result in a fiscal impact to the City.

The magnitude of this impact is not yet known and will depend on the direction provided by the City Council regarding preferred materials, design, and the associated implementation approach. Future projects incorporating alternative parkway materials may result in either increased or decreased project costs. Any resulting fiscal impact will be Item L.3
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials

evaluated and identified in the respective project staff report at the time the project is proposed to City Council.

WORK PLAN:

The Fletcher Cove Park and El Viento Pocket Park Trail Improvements project is identified as a Transportation and Mobility priority in the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Council Work Plan. The existing decomposed granite (DG) trail pathways are susceptible to significant erosion during storm events, compromising trail stability and accessibility. This project will provide alternative surfacing materials and conduct a pilot project to test selected materials to observe performance during wet and dry season cycles.

OPTIONS:
• Receive presentation from staff, discuss, and provide direction.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the staff update regarding alternatives to decomposed granite (DG) surfaces within City-owned facilities and public right-of-way parkway areas.

2. Provide direction on a preferred policy framework for evaluating alternative surface materials.

3. Direct staff to continue refining a pilot program to evaluate selected materials at representative locations and provide feedback on the evaluation metrics at a future City Council meeting.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Item L.3
Evaluating Alternative Surface
Materials for City Facilities
and Public Right-of-Way
(Item L.3)
City Council Meeting – September 9, 2026
Item L.3
• Review DG surface treatments & recurring issues
• Present tiered framework to evaluate alternatives
• Discuss site conditions to guide material selection
• Potential pilot program locations
• Receive City Council direction
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Agenda
Slide 2
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
• Decomposed Granite (DG) is used throughout the City within parks, pathways, and public R/W for walking and parking • Neighborhoods within Solana Beach have varied improvements (PCC sidewalks vs DG) as a function of development
• As development continues, there persists a need to consider parking, pedestrian access, and future growth
Background
September 9, 2026 Slide 3
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
• Current City parkway standard is a low-profile curb and a 10-footwide decomposed granite (DG) surface Background
September 9, 2026 Slide 4
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
DG Limitations
Slide 5
• Erosion/sediment transport
• Instability when wet
• Tracks into homes, drainage systems,
private property
• Hazardous for aging community
• Frequent maintenance needs
• Costly to regularly maintain
• Causing sloughing and erosion of
downstream slope
• Possible stormwater violation
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
E. Cliff/ N. Rios
Avocado Pl
Item L.3
• Failing DG sidewalk
constructed along S
Nardo Ave and Nardito
Lane
• Included chevrons to
address longitudinal
slope
• Resulting in fissures and
sloughing along walkway
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Case Study: Nardo Ave / Nardito Ln
Slide 6
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
• Current approach based on past Council meetings
• Residents and property owners frequently ask for
alternatives to DG, desire for a standard
• Property owners responsible for maintenance
• California Streets & Highways Code §5610 SBMC 11.16.050 • Desire for durability, less maintenance, consistency
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Community Feedback
Slide 7
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
• Aesthetic consistency within community
• Benefits of having a standard in place
• Maintenance, liability, shelf availability
• Predictability as agencies/utilities improve
• Consistent finish to known deficiencies
• Tiered approved material palette
• Based on running slope, then subsequent considerations • No single material performs best in all situations
• Use flow chart to guide selection
• Maintain flexibility, aesthetics, variable cost options September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Policy Approach
Slide 8
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Slide 9
Revised Typical Parkway Cross Section
4-6” PARKWAY MATERIAL

REVISED PARKWAY DETAIL
Item L.3
Site Specific Considerations
For Tier Framework
• Slope & drainage conditions
• ADA accessibility
• Vehicular loading needs
• Permeability
• Ease of removal for future
improvements
• Ultimate road classification
• Long-term maintenance
• Cost (installation &
maintenance)
• Local availability
• Cohesiveness across City
• Safe for aging community
September 9, 2026 Slide 10
Regular City Council Meeting Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3) Item L.3
Proposed Approach
Approved Material Palette by Performance Tier
September 9, 2026 Slide 11
Regular City Council Meeting Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3) Tier 1
Traditional / Lower Intensity
Flat slopes (≤ ~3% )
• Stabilized & Bonded DG
Tier 2
Enhanced natural-appearing
Moderate slopes (~3 - 4.5%)
*EMRA Required
• G3 Stabilized DG
• PolyPavement
• Resin-bound Aggregate
• ADA Compliant
• Vehicular Loading Option
Tier 3
Hardened / Engineered
Steeper slopes (>4.5%)
*EMRA Required
• GraniteCrete
• Concrete options
• Pavers
• Grid/turf block
• ADA Compliant
• Vehicular Loading
Running Slope  Site Specific Conditions
Item L.3
Tier 1: Traditional/ Lower Intensity Surfaces
Slide 12
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Decomposed Granite
Fletcher Cove Community Center North Rios Avenue
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
DG Color Options
Item L.3
Tier 2: Enhanced Natural-Looking Surfaces
Slide 13
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Resin-Bound
Aggregate DG with G3 Stabilizer Soil-Stabilized PolyPavement TechniSoil Japanese Gardens (Van Nuys) San Diego County (Pebble Paving Co) September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
Item L.3
Tier 3: Hardened / Engineered Surfaces
Natural Aesthetic
Slide 14
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
GraniteCrete
San Diego Zoo Safari Park
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
PolyPavement
Soil-Stabilized Native Surface
Item L.3
Tier 3 Continued
Paver Options
Slide 15
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
North Rios Seabright Lane Seabright Lane
Item L.3
Tier 3 Continued
Permeable Options
Slide 16
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Permeable Pavers Concrete Grid
Pavers / Turf Block
Marvista Drive Belgrade Turfstone
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
Permeable Pavers
Corto Street
Item L.3
Tier 3 Continued
Concrete Options
Slide 17
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Lithocrete
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
Stamped Concrete Sand Finished
Concrete Colored Concrete
Item L.3
Decision Matrix / Flowchart
Slide 18
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
Item L.3
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Pilot Program Sites
Fletcher Cove Community Center
Slide 19
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
• High foot traffic with
steep slopes
• Degradation of
compaction
• DG improvements in
FY2025/2026 Work
Plan
• Potential Solution:

Apply PolyPavement
to degraded slopes
• Works with DG,
mixed on-site
Item L.3
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Pilot Program Sites
Additional Locations
Slide 20
El Viento Pocket Park Interim La Colonia Park
Improvements San Dieguito County Park
Vehicular loading along Granados,
steep slopes, moderate foot traffic
DG improvements in
FY 2025/2026 Work Plan
Potential pedestrian-access, ADA
improvements considered
Vehicular loading, varied
longitudinal slopes
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.3
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Pilot Program Evaluation Metrics
Slide 21
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
• Surface Integrity
• Linear feet of surface erosion, rilling, or raveling per 100 linear feet of parkway, measured at 6-month intervals • Percentage of surface area requiring repair or reapplication within the observation period • Qualitative rating (Good / Fair / Poor) assigned by staff at each inspection • Drainage and Sediment
• Presence or absence of material migration into the adjacent travel lane or storm drain inlet, documented at each inspection • Qualitative assessment of runoff concentration or ponding following a qualifying storm event (0.5 inches or greater in 24 hours) • Accessibility
• Pass/Fail assessment against ADA firm-and-stable surface criteria at each inspection interval • Number of reported pedestrian slip, trip, or accessibility complaints per site • Maintenance Demand
• Staff or contractor hours expended per site per year for reactive and routine maintenance • Cost per linear foot per year of maintenance, enabling direct comparison across materials and sites • User and Resident Feedback
• Brief structured survey administered to adjacent property owners and frequent users at 12 and 24 months, rating appearance, usability, and overall satisfaction on a 1–5 scale
• Installation Quality
• Documentation of base preparation, curing conditions, and contractor notes at time of installation, to allow performance outcomes to be interpreted in context
Item L.3

1. Receive the staff update regarding alternatives to
decomposed granite (DG) surfaces within public right-ofway parkway areas and within City-owned facilities.

2. Provide direction on a preferred policy framework for evaluating alternative parkway surface materials for use by private property owners and within City-owned
facilities.

3. Direct staff to continue refining a pilot program to evaluate selected materials at representative locations and provide feedback on the evaluation metrics.

Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Staff Recommendation
Slide 22
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.3
Questions?
City Council Meeting – September 9, 2026
Item L.3
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
MEETING DATE: September 9, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: L.3 – EvaluaƟng AlternaƟve Surface Materials for City FaciliƟes and the Public Right-of-Way
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
End the Mandatory DG Requirement for ResidenƟal Parkway Improvements I strongly support eliminaƟng the City’s current policy of mandaƟng decomposed granite as the only allowed standard parkway surface and instead allowing property owners reasonable flexibility to use other approved materials.

This issue was before the Council more than two years ago, and the basic concerns have not changed. DG can look aƩracƟve to some when newly installed and may perform adequately in some locaƟons, but it is not an appropriate universal soluƟon. In 2024, City staff reported deterioraƟon at every DG locaƟon it inspected, with significantly greater deterioraƟon in steeper areas and areas with higher traffic. Staff also idenƟfied erosion into streets and storm drains, soŌening when exposed to water, and potenƟal pedestrian trip hazards, and concluded that DG is not the most suitable surface in all instances.

The public comments submiƩed in 2024 raised the same concerns. Residents described DG as messy, prone to deterioraƟon, expensive to maintain and replace, troublesome in rain and runoff, and parƟcularly problemaƟc on sloped streets. Commenters asked for pavers, hard surfaces and other alternaƟves. A civil engineer submiƫng comments to the City specifically warned that DG erosion can create long-term maintenance problems, reduced walkability and tripping hazards.

This is not just an abstract policy concern. I have spoken with many neighbors and homeowners under construcƟon and being required to deal with this issue. I have yet to find a single person who actually likes the idea of mandated DG. Most people I have spoken with are not merely asking for flexibility — they are adamantly opposed to DG as a required surface because of the mess, erosion, maintenance and long-term upkeep it creates.

Likewise, the Council itself recognized these concerns in 2024. The meeƟng minutes reflect discussion that DG may not be suitable for steep slopes or runoff areas, that it can require frequent restoraƟon as bonding agents break down, that parkway surfaces need to remain safe and accessible for pedestrians using walkers and wheelchairs, and that alternaƟve materials such as pavers, stamped concrete and crushed rock should be considered.

Who is actually driving this policy and the insistence on a single mandated material? Where did it come from? In the 2024 wriƩen comments submiƩed to the City, there is no meaningful public support for a DG-only policy. Residents overwhelmingly asked for flexibility, alternaƟves, or relief from the mandate. There is no public demand or demonstrated community preference that supports maintaining the DG-only mandate.

Item L.3
The maintenance and liability implicaƟons of mandaƟng DG should also be taken seriously. In McAllister v. United States, a federal trip-and-fall case involving a stabilized DG pedestrian surface at Crissy Field, the case was allowed to proceed on a negligent-maintenance theory aŌer erosion leŌ a hazardous condiƟon at the edge of the DG surface. The NaƟonal Park Service’s own maintenance supervisor tesƟfied that maintaining the stabilized DG was a “constant and ongoing enterprise,” requiring at least daily visits by park staff, and that erosion could require the same area to be refilled on consecuƟve days; rain, wind and bicycle traffic were among the factors affecƟng the surface. This is consistent with the City’s documented 2024 findings, when staff reported deterioraƟon at every DG locaƟon it inspected.

That is exactly the pracƟcal problem with requiring DG in public rights-of-way: it is not a set-itand-forget-it material. It requires recurring inspecƟon, replenishment and repair, and when that maintenance does not occur, deterioraƟon can create trip hazards and liability exposure. It is also not fair for the City to impose a never-ending maintenance obligaƟon on individual homeowners simply because the City prefers one parƟcular surface material in the public rightof-way. If a homeowner is willing to install an aƩracƟve, durable, properly engineered alternaƟve that reduces ongoing maintenance and performs beƩer at that parƟcular locaƟon, the City should allow it rather than forcing the homeowner to conƟnually maintain and replace a City-mandated DG surface.

There is also an everyday quality-of-life issue. DG migrates. It gets carried into the street by Ɵres and runoff, tracked onto walks and into homes, displaced by parked vehicles, and then has to be raked, replenished or repaired. Rain can turn what is merely an inconvenience during dry weather into a much larger erosion and drainage problem.

The new staff report recognizes many of these concerns by idenƟfying a broad range of possible alternaƟves, including stabilized products, resin-bound aggregate, GraniteCrete, concrete finishes, pavers and permeable interlocking pavers. That is a meaningful step in the right direcƟon and should be adopted today.

Homeowners and the public should not have to wait through another lengthy City pilot program before reasonable alternaƟves can be used on private frontage improvements. The City has already had years of real-world experience with DG, documented its shortcomings in 2024, received substanƟal public comment about those shortcomings, and has now idenƟfied numerous alternaƟve materials. The 2026 report itself acknowledges that higher-performance materials may be appropriate because of slope, concentrated runoff, storm-drain proximity, or a history of erosion.

The objecƟve should not be to replace one mandatory material with another. The City’s role should be to establish reasonable standards for safety, drainage, accessibility and appearance — not to dictate one surface material when homeowners are willing to install beƩer-performing alternaƟves that meet those standards.

Item L.3
DG should remain an available opƟon, where it performs well, but it should be an opƟon, not a mandate. Solana Beach’s older neighborhoods are aƩracƟve in large part because they are not uniform or cookie-cuƩer. Allowing a limited paleƩe of aƩracƟve, durable and properly engineered parkway materials can preserve that character while improving safety, drainage and long-term maintenance.

I respecƞully ask the Council to:

1. End the mandatory DG requirement for residenƟal parkway improvements.

2. Establish an approved paleƩe of alternaƟve materials based on appropriate engineering, drainage, accessibility and aestheƟc standards.

3. Allow property owners to select from those approved materials without waiƟng for compleƟon of a City-facility pilot program.

4. Retain DG as an available opƟon where site condiƟons make it appropriate, rather than requiring it everywhere.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

John Boat
, Solana Beach
Item L.3
Item L.3
Item L.3
Item L.3
Item L.3
Item L.3
Item L.3
Item L.3
Item L.3
Evaluating Alternative Surface
Materials for City Facilities
and Public Right-of-Way
(Item L.3)
City Council Meeting – September 9, 2026
Item L.3
• Review DG surface treatments & recurring issues
• Present tiered framework to evaluate alternatives
• Discuss site conditions to guide material selection
• Potential pilot program locations
• Receive City Council direction
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Agenda
Slide 2
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
• Decomposed Granite (DG) is used throughout the City within parks, pathways, and public R/W for walking and parking • Neighborhoods within Solana Beach have varied improvements (PCC sidewalks vs DG) as a function of development
• As development continues, there persists a need to consider parking, pedestrian access, and future growth
Background
September 9, 2026 Slide 3
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
• Current City parkway standard is a low-profile curb and a 10-footwide decomposed granite (DG) surface Background
September 9, 2026 Slide 4
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
DG Limitations
Slide 5
• Erosion/sediment transport
• Instability when wet
• Tracks into homes, drainage systems,
private property
• Hazardous for aging community
• Frequent maintenance needs
• Costly to regularly maintain
• Causing sloughing and erosion of
downstream slope
• Possible stormwater violation
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
E. Cliff/ N. Rios
Avocado Pl
Item L.3
• Failing DG sidewalk
constructed along S
Nardo Ave and Nardito
Lane
• Included chevrons to
address longitudinal
slope
• Resulting in fissures and
sloughing along walkway
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Case Study: Nardo Ave / Nardito Ln
Slide 6
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
• Current approach based on past Council meetings
• Residents and property owners frequently ask for
alternatives to DG, desire for a standard
• Property owners responsible for maintenance
• California Streets & Highways Code §5610 SBMC 11.16.050 • Desire for durability, less maintenance, consistency
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Community Feedback
Slide 7
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
• Aesthetic consistency within community
• Benefits of having a standard in place
• Maintenance, liability, shelf availability
• Predictability as agencies/utilities improve
• Consistent finish to known deficiencies
• Tiered approved material palette
• Based on running slope, then subsequent considerations • No single material performs best in all situations
• Use flow chart to guide selection
• Maintain flexibility, aesthetics, variable cost options September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Policy Approach
Slide 8
Item L.3
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Slide 9
Revised Typical Parkway Cross Section
4-6” PARKWAY MATERIAL

REVISED PARKWAY DETAIL
Item L.3
Site Specific Considerations
For Tier Framework
• Slope & drainage conditions
• ADA accessibility
• Vehicular loading needs
• Permeability
• Ease of removal for future
improvements
• Ultimate road classification
• Long-term maintenance
• Cost (installation &
maintenance)
• Local availability
• Cohesiveness across City
• Safe for aging community
September 9, 2026 Slide 10
Regular City Council Meeting Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3) Item L.3
Proposed Approach
Approved Material Palette by Performance Tier
September 9, 2026 Slide 11
Regular City Council Meeting Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3) Tier 1
Traditional / Lower Intensity
Flat slopes (≤ ~3% )
• Stabilized & Bonded DG
Tier 2
Enhanced natural-appearing
Moderate slopes (~3 - 4.5%)
*EMRA Required
• G3 Stabilized DG
• PolyPavement
• Resin-bound Aggregate
• ADA Compliant
• Vehicular Loading Option
Tier 3
Hardened / Engineered
Steeper slopes (>4.5%)
*EMRA Required
• GraniteCrete
• Concrete options
• Pavers
• Grid/turf block
• ADA Compliant
• Vehicular Loading
Running Slope  Site Specific Conditions
Item L.3
Tier 1: Traditional/ Lower Intensity Surfaces
Slide 12
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Decomposed Granite
Fletcher Cove Community Center North Rios Avenue
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
DG Color Options
Item L.3
Tier 2: Enhanced Natural-Looking Surfaces
Slide 13
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Resin-Bound
Aggregate DG with G3 Stabilizer Soil-Stabilized PolyPavement TechniSoil Japanese Gardens (Van Nuys) San Diego County (Pebble Paving Co) September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
Item L.3
Tier 3: Hardened / Engineered Surfaces
Natural Aesthetic
Slide 14
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
GraniteCrete
San Diego Zoo Safari Park
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
PolyPavement
Soil-Stabilized Native Surface
Item L.3
Tier 3 Continued
Paver Options
Slide 15
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
North Rios Seabright Lane Seabright Lane
Item L.3
Tier 3 Continued
Permeable Options
Slide 16
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Permeable Pavers Concrete Grid
Pavers / Turf Block
Marvista Drive Belgrade Turfstone
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
Permeable Pavers
Corto Street
Item L.3
Tier 3 Continued
Concrete Options
Slide 17
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Lithocrete
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
Stamped Concrete Sand Finished
Concrete Colored Concrete
Item L.3
Decision Matrix / Flowchart
Slide 18
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
September 9, 2026
Regular City Council Meeting
Item L.3
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Pilot Program Sites
Fletcher Cove Community Center
Slide 19
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
• High foot traffic with
steep slopes
• Degradation of
compaction
• DG improvements in
FY2025/2026 Work
Plan
• Potential Solution:

Apply PolyPavement
to degraded slopes
• Works with DG,
mixed on-site
Item L.3
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Pilot Program Sites
Additional Locations
Slide 20
El Viento Pocket Park Interim La Colonia Park
Improvements San Dieguito County Park
Vehicular loading along Granados,
steep slopes, moderate foot traffic
DG improvements in
FY 2025/2026 Work Plan
Potential pedestrian-access, ADA
improvements considered
Vehicular loading, varied
longitudinal slopes
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.3
Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Pilot Program Evaluation Metrics
Slide 21
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
• Surface Integrity
• Linear feet of surface erosion, rilling, or raveling per 100 linear feet of parkway, measured at 6-month intervals • Percentage of surface area requiring repair or reapplication within the observation period • Qualitative rating (Good / Fair / Poor) assigned by staff at each inspection • Drainage and Sediment
• Presence or absence of material migration into the adjacent travel lane or storm drain inlet, documented at each inspection • Qualitative assessment of runoff concentration or ponding following a qualifying storm event (0.5 inches or greater in 24 hours) • Accessibility
• Pass/Fail assessment against ADA firm-and-stable surface criteria at each inspection interval • Number of reported pedestrian slip, trip, or accessibility complaints per site • Maintenance Demand
• Staff or contractor hours expended per site per year for reactive and routine maintenance • Cost per linear foot per year of maintenance, enabling direct comparison across materials and sites • User and Resident Feedback
• Brief structured survey administered to adjacent property owners and frequent users at 12 and 24 months, rating appearance, usability, and overall satisfaction on a 1–5 scale
• Installation Quality
• Documentation of base preparation, curing conditions, and contractor notes at time of installation, to allow performance outcomes to be interpreted in context
Item L.3

1. Receive the staff update regarding alternatives to
decomposed granite (DG) surfaces within public right-ofway parkway areas and within City-owned facilities.

2. Provide direction on a preferred policy framework for evaluating alternative parkway surface materials for use by private property owners and within City-owned
facilities.

3. Direct staff to continue refining a pilot program to evaluate selected materials at representative locations and provide feedback on the evaluation metrics.

Alternative Parkway Materials (L.3)
Staff Recommendation
Slide 22
Regular City Council Meeting
September 9, 2026
Item L.3
Questions?
City Council Meeting – September 9, 2026
Item L.3
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH www.cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov
635 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075(858) 720-2400Fax (858) 720-2455 August 27, 2026
The Honorable Jacqui Irwin
Assemblymember, 42nd District
1021 O Street, Suite 6220
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 762 – Single-Use Vaping Devices: Prohibition – SUPPORT Assemblymember Irwin,
On behalf of the City of Solana Beach, I am writing to express our support for Assembly Bill 762. Our city is deeply committed to safeguarding public health, protecting our youth, and maintaining rigorous environmental and waste-reduction standards across our community. AB 762 aligns directly with these priorities by banning the retail sale of single-use, disposable electronic vaping devices.

Disposable vaping products represent a severe, dual-threat challenge for small and mid-sized municipalities. From a public health perspective, these inexpensive, mass-market devices directly target youth and contribute to nicotine dependency. From an environmental and municipal management perspective, disposable vapes are a significant hazardous waste concern. Containing non-removable lithium-ion batteries, electronic circuit boards, and toxic liquid nicotine residue, millions of these devices are improperly discarded into municipal trash streams, storm drains, beaches, and parks.

For local waste management agencies and public works departments, discarded single-use vapes pose severe fire hazards in municipal waste trucks and recycling facilities due to damaged lithium batteries. Eliminating these single-use hazardous items at the retail level protects community health, reduces municipal waste management costs, and prevents environmental contamination in our water bodies and public spaces. For these reasons, the City proudly supports AB 762.

Sincerely,

LESA HEEBNER
Mayor
City of Solana Beach
Item M.

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH www.cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov
635 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075(858) 720-2400Fax (858) 720-2455 August 27, 2026
The Honorable David Alvarez
Assemblymember, 80th District
1021 O Street, Suite 5320
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2433 – Housing Development: Density Bonus Law – OPPOSE Assemblymember Alvarez,
On behalf of the City of Solana Beach, I am writing to express our opposition to Assembly Bill 2433.

While our community shares the objective of expanding affordable homeownership opportunities, AB 2433 expands California’s Density Bonus Law in a manner that grants significant concessions and density increases without guaranteeing a proportional return in deep, long-term affordable units.

AB 2433 allows developers to claim multiple extra concessions and overrides local land use standards while providing a minimal baseline of affordable units,—which the City already mandates— allowing large market-rate developments to bypass local objective design standards. Furthermore, by streamlining approvals and stripping local discretion, the bill forces high-density residential developments onto local infrastructure without ensuring that municipal services, roadways, parks, and utilities can absorb the increased footprint.

Local land use standards and objective design rules exist to protect community character, preserve open space, and ensure safe infrastructure integration. AB 2433 erodes local considerations and forces communities to grant sweeping development concessions without requiring developers to demonstrate how these incentives directly yield meaningful affordable housing stock. For these reasons, the City opposes AB 2433.

Sincerely,

LESA HEEBNER
Mayor
City of Solana Beach
Item M.

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH www.cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov
635 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075(858) 720-2400Fax (858) 720-2455 August 27, 2026
Governor Gavin Newsom
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1117 – Accessory Dwelling Units: Impact Fees – OPPOSE Dear Governor Newsom,
On behalf of the City of Solana Beach, I am writing to express our opposition to Senate Bill 1117.

While our City supports sustainable, infill housing strategies, and is proud of the progress that has been made to bring new housing options to our community, SB 1117 further erodes essential local authority by imposing rigid statewide restrictions on how municipal agencies assess development impact fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Local governments rely on development impact fees to ensure that new residential density pays its fair share of the capital costs required to maintain and expand critical municipal infrastructure.

The proliferation of ADUs places continuous, incremental strain on local infrastructure, including public safety services, park capacity, stormwater drainage, water delivery, and localized traffic networks. SB 1117 strips local governments of a crucial, long-established revenue and funding mechanism by capping and restricting fee assessments on larger ADU builds. Forcing cities to absorb the long-term capital costs of increased density without adequate cost-recovery mechanisms ultimately shifts the financial burden onto existing taxpayers and compromises the quality of local public services.

Small cities in California are best positioned to calibrate impact fees in a manner that balances housing production with local infrastructure capacity. By pre-empting municipal authority and restricting local fee revenue, SB 1117 creates an unsustainable fiscal model for communities absorbing rapid ADU growth. For these reasons, the City opposes SB 1117 and respectfully requests your veto of this bill.

Sincerely,

LESA HEEBNER
Mayor
City of Solana Beach
Item M.

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH www.cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov
635 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075(858) 720-2400Fax (858) 720-2455 August 27, 2026
The Honorable Sharon Quirk-Silva
Assemblymember, 67th District
1021 O Street, Suite 4210
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 956 – Streamlined Approval for Multiple Accessory Dwelling Units – OPPOSE Assemblymember Quirk-Silva,
On behalf of the City of Solana Beach, I am writing to express our opposition to Assembly Bill 956.

This measure mandates the ministerial approval of up to two detached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on lots containing single-family homes, further stripping local governments of land use discretion and compounding infrastructure impacts in residential neighborhoods.

Municipalities across California are already accommodating substantial infill growth through existing state ADU laws. AB 956 bypasses local zoning frameworks by effectively transforming single-family residential parcels into triplex-density lots without adequate local review. Uncontrolled density increases of this magnitude severely strain localized infrastructure, including on-street parking capacity, sewer capacity, utility conduits, and emergency response access in neighborhoods that were never planned or engineered for multi-unit density.

Furthermore, in coastal Cities such as Solana Beach, the increase in allowable units on each lot is not necessarily providing more available housing, but is instead substantially raising the price of older single family homes previously affordable to young families as starter homes, due to this potential increase in market value when redeveloped. The resulting “compounds” built on these, as well as existing lots, are selling for exorbitant amounts to people in the income group not likely to rent these additional units as housing.

Preserving local control is essential to ensuring that housing growth occurs alongside adequate infrastructure investments and environmental protections, as well as with a mind to the local real estate realities. AB 956 pre-empts local authority and eliminates a city's ability to evaluate whether a residential lot can safely accommodate multiple standalone secondary structures. For these reasons, the City opposes AB 956.

Sincerely,

LESA HEEBNER
Mayor
City of Solana Beach
Item M.

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH www.cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov
635 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075(858) 720-2400Fax (858) 720-2455 August 27, 2026
The Honorable Lori D. Wilson
Assemblymember, 11th District
1021 O Street, Suite 6330
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1621 – Postentitlement Phase Permits & Housing Accountability Act – OPPOSE Assemblymember Wilson,
On behalf of the City of Solana Beach, I am writing to express our opposition to Assembly Bill 1621.

Joining with concerns highlighted by the League of California Cities and municipal leaders statewide, our City is concerned that AB 1621 severely compromises local building review processes, restricts local plan checks, and unfairly exposes cities to strict Housing Accountability Act (HAA) penalties during technical safety reviews.

AB 1621 places rigid restrictions on the post-entitlement permit phase by limiting the number of plancheck resubmittals a local building department can conduct unless complex, onerous findings are established. The plan check process is not a discretionary barrier; it is a vital technical safety step that ensures structures comply with structural safety, fire, electrical, and energy standards. Forcing municipal building officials to approve building plans under arbitrary time schedules or face legal exposure and liability under the Housing Accountability Act forces local agencies to choose between thorough public safety reviews and costly state enforcement actions.

While the City supports efforts to eliminate unreasonable delays in residential permitting, local building departments must retain the authority and time needed to ensure that newly constructed buildings are safe for occupants and surrounding neighborhoods. AB 1621 creates unreasonable operational risks for municipal agencies without addressing the root causes of construction delays.

For these reasons, the City opposes AB 1621.

Sincerely,

LESA HEEBNER
Mayor
City of Solana Beach
Item M.

Item M.

Item M.

August 27, 2026
The Honorable Monique Limón The Honorable Robert Rivas
Senate President pro Tempore Assembly Speaker
California State Senate California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8518 1021 O Street, Suite 8330
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Opposition to Forthcoming Wildfire Liability Reform Package that Would Limit Public Agency Recovery
Dear Senate Pro Tem Limon and Assembly Speaker Rivas,
On behalf of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), and the undersigned local elected officials, cities and counties, we are calling on you to reject efforts to limit public agency recovery when private electric utilities cause wildfires, as proposed in the Governor’s wildfire liability reform package, prompted by the SB 254 Report.

This proposal will wrongly shift costs to taxpayers and force devastating consequences on public agencies and wildfire victims already struggling to rebuild their communities.

The proposal relies on the false hopes that public property, infrastructure and emergency response costs can be recovered from FEMA or insurance. Limiting public agency recovery will only shift costs to taxpayers and leave public agencies financially stranded – or even worse, bankrupt. We strongly oppose the following reforms and urge the Legislature to reject them outright from being included in any wildfire package that will advance this legislative session.

1. Limiting Public Property and Infrastructure Damages Imperils Public Agencies Tasked with Rebuilding their Communities
The proposal will have negligent private electric utilities pay just pennies on the dollar to rebuild critical infrastructure and public facilities that are destroyed. Limiting such costs to the mere depreciated value of the public facility or infrastructure will impact the rebuilding of:

Item M.

• Public facilities and buildings
• Water, sewer, roads, communication, and traffic signal infrastructure • Parks, schools, libraries, and fire stations
When a private electric utility causes a wildfire, they are required to fully compensate for property damage. Public agencies cannot rebuild damaged infrastructure on recovery dollars that only cover the depreciated value of an asset. Rebuilding public facilities and infrastructure is not a luxury - it is an essential public service for homeowners, businesses, and communities to return home.

2. Limiting Recovery for Emergency Response and Mutual Aid Forces Public Agencies to Absorb Costs and Increase Financial Risk, Waiting Years For FEMA Reimbursement While Communities Struggle to Recover
The proposal prevents public agencies from recovering emergency response and mutual aid costs from the very private electric utilities who cause these devastating wildfires and inappropriately suggest FEMA as the solution. Limiting emergency response cost recovery will be catastrophic for small jurisdictions and fracture our mutual aid system upon which the state and communities rely on. There is a federal obligation to pursue negligent parties per the Stafford Act. This will create ambiguity when negligent parties must meet that requirement and will jeopardize federal reimbursement. FEMA has strict rules on recoverability, and some events aren’t even eligible for FEMA reimbursement. Since FEMA is a reimbursement model, funds must be spent upfront.

Interpretations in FEMA change from Administration to Administration, creating uncertainty whether future relief will even be available for these incidents.

3. Eliminating Property Tax Losses Leaves Communities Financially Stranded Schools, cities, counties, and special districts rely on property taxes to fund basic needs in our communities. The proposal will financially strand public agencies by eliminating the ability to bring claims for lost property taxes. This has tremendous consequences for essential public services, including fire, police, social services programs, drinking water, public infrastructure, and drastically risks school closure.

There is no evidence in the SB 254 Report to suggest that public agency claims are unreasonable or unjustified. Public agency damages amounted to merely 4% of the total wildfire claims that utilities paid from 2017 to 2024. Public infrastructure, lost tax revenue, emergency response, and mutual aid are necessary and critical for local governments to function while struggling to rebuild their communities. If public agencies cannot recover costs from negligent private electric utilities, local taxpayers will pay more instead. The very survivors whose community burned will foot the bill which is NOT an equitable approach to socializing wildfire risk.

We respectfully request the Legislature to protect public infrastructure, safeguard emergency response and our mutual aid system, and protect taxpayers from this private electric utility bailout – and to reject the Governor’s proposal to limit public agency recovery when such utilities cause wildfires.

Item M.

Sincerely,
Melissa Sparks-Kranz John Kennedy
Legislative Advocate Senior Policy Advocate
League of California Cities Rural County Representatives of California Jordan Wells
Legislative Advocate
California State Association of Counties
And on behalf of the following cities, counties and local elected officials:

City of Arcata
City of Artesia
City of Atascadero
City of Albany
City of Agoura Hills
City of Azusa
Alameda County
Town of Apple Valley
City of Benicia
City of Bellflower
City of Buena Park
City of Beverly Hills
City of Big Bear Lake
City of Brea
Calaveras County
Contra Costa County
City of Camarillo
City of Coachella
City of Claremont
City of Colton
City of Clearlake
City of Corona
City of Cloverdale
City of Carlsbad
City of Daly City
City of Del Mar
City of Diamond Bar
City of Downey
City of Danville
City of Dublin
City of El Cerrito
City of Emeryville
El Dorado County
City of Fremont
Fresno County
City of Glendora
City of Greenfield
City of Goleta
City of Hayward
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hemet
City of Hesperia
City of Highland
City of Irvine
City of Jackson
Kern County
Lake County
City of La Mirada
City of La Verne
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Lakeport
City of Lake Forest
City of Lakewood
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Livermore
Lassen County
City of Manteca
City of Maywood
City of Moreno Valley
Marin County
Mariposa County
Mendocino County
Monterey County
Modoc County
Mono County
City of Monrovia
City of Morgan Hill
City of Mission Viejo
City of Napa
Napa County
Nevada County
City of Oakland
City of Oceanside
City of Orinda
City of Palm Desert
City of Petaluma
City of Poway
City of Point Arena
Placer County
City of Pleasanton
City of Rosemead
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Redwood City
City of Rio Dell
City of Riverside
City of Rolling Hills
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of San Fernando
City of San Jose
City of San Marcos
City of Santa Cruz
City of Santee
City of Salinas
City of Seal Beach
City of Santa Rosa
City of Sierra Madre
City of Stanton
City of Sunnyvale
City of Santa Monica
City of Santa Barbara
City of Solana Beach
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Santa Paula
City of Saratoga
City of South Gate
Santa Cruz County
Santa Barbara County
San Bernardino County
Santa Clara County
San Joaquin County
Item M.

San Mateo County
San Luis Obispo County
Sonoma County
Stanislaus County
Sutter County
Sacramento County
Tehama County
City of Temecula
City of Torrance
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Tracy
City of Tustin
City of Vacaville
City of Visalia
City of Vista
City of Walnut
City of Walnut Creek
City of Weed
City of West Hollywood
City of Whittier
City of Willits
City of Yreka
Yolo County
Yuba County
Marin County Council of
Mayors and Councilmembers
Orange County Fire Authority
Sonoma County Mayor’s and
Councilmembers’ Association
Ventura Council of Governments
Supervisor Anne Contrell, Napa County
Mayor Brett Taylor, City of Visalia
Mayor Bill Powers, City of Portola
Mayor Betsy Smegal Andersen, City of Piedmont
Vice Mayor Conna McCarthy, City of Piedmont
Mayor Dr. Cynthia Gonzalez, City of Cudahy
Mayor Carlos Juarez, City of Santa Paula
Mayor David Tennessen, City of Camarillo
Councilmember Debby Stegura, City of Rolling Hills Estates Councilmember Dorothy Pemberton, City of Downey
Councilmember David McGowan, City of Palos Verdes Estates Councilmember Evan Branning, City of Livermore
Mayor Frank J. Navarro, City of Colton
Supervisor Gary Bradford, Yuba County
Mayor Glenn R. Sylvester, City of Daly City
Councilmember Holly Tillman, City of Clayton
Supervisor Jake Withrow, Glenn County
Supervisor Jill Cox, Trinity County
Supervisor Justin Cummings, Santa Cruz County
Vice Mayor Jaime Patino, City of Union City
Councilmember Jen Long, City of Piedmont
Mayor Joshua Barron, City of South Gate
Mayor John Stephens, City of Costa Mesa
Mayor Kevin Wilk, City of Walnut Creek
Supervisor Kim De Serpa, Santa Cruz County
Mayor Kerry Hills, City of Moraga
Councilmember Larry Spicer, City of Monrovia
Councilmember Lorrel Plimier, City of Piedmont
Supervisor Manu Koenig, Santa Cruz County
Supervisor Monica Martinez, Santa Cruz County
Mayor Michael Kemps, City of Palos Verdes Estates
Mayor Mike Hannon, City of Newark
Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Monica Sánchez, City of Pico Rivera
Councilmember Nathan Steele, City of Seal Beach
Councilmember Norma Martínez-Rubin, City of Pinole
Councilmember Pamela Campos, City of San Jose
Mayor Stephanie Hellman, City of Fairfax
Mayor Sylvia Lemus, City of Cotati
Chair of Supervisors Sukhminder S. Dhaliwal, San Joaquin County Vice Mayor Steve “Woody” Culleton, Town of Paradise
Councilmember Tom Ramsey, City of Piedmont
Councilmember Xouhoa Bowen, City of San Leandro
Item M.

cc: The Honorable Governor Gavin Newsom
Members, California State Senate
Members, California State Assembly
Item M.