Agenda packet — Solana Beach City Council, October 14, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY,
& HOUSING AUTHORITY
AGENDA
Joint REGULAR Meeting
Wednesday, October 14, 2026 * 06:00 PM
Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California City Council meetings are video recorded and archived as a permanent record. The video recording captures the complete proceedings of the meeting and is available for viewing on the City's website.

Online posting of Reports & Supplemental Documents consist of items received up to the cut off time prior to meetings for processing new submittals (2 hrs prior to meeting start). Complete records containing meeting handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained from the records archive center.

The City Council shall not begin a new agenda item after 10:30 p.m. unless approved by a majority vote of all members present. SBMC 2.04.070
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Lesa Heebner
Deputy Mayor Jill MacDonald - Council District 4
David A. Zito - Council District 1
Jewel Edson - Council District 3
Kristi Becker - Council District 2
Johanna Canlas, City Attorney Alyssa Muto, City Manager Megan Bavin, City Clerk ________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC MEETING ACCESS Regular City Council meetings are held Wednesdays at 6:00 PM and broadcast live. Meeting schedules, including special sessions, are available on the City’s website. Recordings are archived on the Public Meetings webpage as a permanent record of proceedings.

WATCH THE MEETING Live Web Streaming: Watch live on the Public Meetings page (click "Live Meeting"). TV Broadcast: Live on Cox Channel 19, Spectrum Channel 24, and AT&T U-verse Channel 99. If you only have access to audio through a phone, see the remote access phone number at the bottom of these announcements. Archived Videos: Recordings are permanently archived and available on the Public Meetings webpage.

AGENDA MATERIALS A full City Council hard copy agenda packet including supporting documentation is available at City Hall, the Solana Beach Branch Library, La Colonia Community Ctr., and online www.cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov. Agendas are posted at least 72 hours prior to regular meetings and at least 24 hours prior to special meetings. Writings and documents regarding an agenda item received after the official agenda posting, and distributed to Council for consideration, will be made available for public viewing at the same time. In addition, items received at least 2 hours prior to the meeting time will be uploaded online with the agenda posting. Materials submitted for consideration should be forwarded to the City Clerk’s office at [email protected] . The designated location for viewing of hard copies is City Hall during normal business hours. 858-720-2400 COUNCIL DISCLOSURE Under the Levine Act (Gov’t Code §84308), any party to a permit, license, contract (excluding competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts), or other entitlement before the Council must disclose any contributions over $250 made by them or their agents to any Councilmember in the past 12 mos. Public participants and their agents are also asked to disclose. The disclosure must include the contributor’s name, the recipient’s name, the amount, and the contribution date.

City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 14, 2026 Page 1 of 7 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED In compliance with the ADA, individuals with disabilities may request agendas in alternative formats or other accommodations by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (858) 720-2400 at least 72 hours before the meeting.

READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Per Solana Beach Municipal Code §2.04.460, ordinances or resolutions are not read in full at introduction or adoption unless Council makes a request. Without a request to do so, the Council waives the full reading.

The City Council shall not begin a new agenda item after 10:30 p.m. unless by unanimous vote of members present. (SBMC 2.04.070) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Written comments on agenda items should be emailed to [email protected] with the meeting date in the subject line and the Agenda Item #. Comments received after agenda posting but at least two hours before the meeting will be shared with Council and posted online. All comments submitted before the meeting start will be part of the official record but will not be read aloud.

Verbal Comment Participation To speak, submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk before the meeting or the item announcement.

Presentations/Proclamations 3 minutes per speaker. / Oral Communications (topics not listed on this agenda) 3 min. per speaker. / Consent: 3 minutes total to address all Consent Calendar items on which they wish to comment. / Public Hearings, Staff Reports 3 min. per speaker per item, Applicants are provided 15 min.

Remote Speakers This meeting will be conducted in person.

To Speak Remotely
Register to speak using the link: https://cosborg.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_XVzgyh2WSRqNVaOoE1raWQ• Remote speakers must register no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding a Wednesday City Council meeting.
•
Registration is required to allow staff to coordinate the technology and staffing necessary to facilitate remote participation.
•
A confirmation email will be sent to registered speakers with instructions for attending and speaking at the meeting.

Members of the public who do not register by the deadline and wish to provide public comment may attend the meeting in person and submit a speaker slip before the applicable agenda item is heard. •
To Observe the Meeting Only
If you wish to observe the meeting and do not intend to speak, registration is not required. • View Meeting: https://cityofsolanabeach.ca.gov/en/government/public-meetings/watch-meetings-live • Audio-Only Option: Dial: +1-669-254-5252 * Enter Webinar ID: 165 301 3660 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
FLAG SALUTE
PROCLAMATIONS / CERTIFICATES / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Fire Prevention Awareness Month
A.

City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 14, 2026 Page 2 of 7 PRESENTATIONS
• Fire Prevention & Community Risk Reduction
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS-COMMENTARY
STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS-COMMENTARY
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Comments relating to items on this evening's agenda will be taken when those items are heard. This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on matters relating to City business that do not appear on today's agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the City Council may not take action on matters raised during Oral Communications; however, the Council may refer a matter to the City Manager for placement on a future agenda.

CONSENT
Items listed on the Consent Calendar will be acted upon in a single motion unless removed by the City Council for separate discussion. Members of the public wishing to comment on Consent Calendar items will have one opportunity to speak and should include all of their comments during that presentation.

Minutes of the City Council
Recommendation: That the City Council
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings held on September 09, 2026.

1. Register of Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council
Ratify the register of demands for September 12, 2026 - September 25, 2026.

1. E.

J.1
J.2
City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 14, 2026 Page 3 of 7 Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance Services Recommendation: That the City Council
Adopt Resolution 2026-114:

Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Yunex Traffic, Inc., for Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2026/27 only, increasing the contract by $25,000 for a total amount not to exceed $57,669.72.
a.

Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2026/27 Adopted Budget accordingly.
b.

1. On-call Facility Repair Services
Recommendation: That the City Council
Adopt Resolution 2026-115:

Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc., for on-call repair services for Fiscal Year 2026/27, increasing the contract by $25,000 for a total, not to exceed amount of $75,000.
a.

Approving a Budget Transfer from Public Facilities Reserve account to the Public Facility Professional Services Account, in the amount of $25,000 for FY 2026/27.
b.

Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2026/27 Adopted Budget accordingly.
c.

1. Fire Station Emergency Generator
Recommendation: That the City Council
Adopt Resolution 2026-106:

Authorizing the City Council to accept, as complete, the FY 2024-2025 Solana Beach Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement, Bid No. 2025-004, performed by Pacific Power Engineering Technology, Inc. a.
b. Authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

Authorizing the City Treasurer to release the 5% retention ($13,001.15) 35 days after acceptance of this Notice of Completion.
c.

1. J.3
J.4
J.5
City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 14, 2026 Page 4 of 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS
After considering all evidence presented, including written materials and oral testimony, the City Council will render its decision based on written findings supported by substantial evidence in the record. Pursuant to SBMC 2.04.210, an applicant or the applicant's designee(s) for a private development or business project subject to a public hearing is allotted a total of fifteen (15) minutes to address the City Council. A portion of this time may be reserved for rebuttal to comments made in opposition. All speakers are asked to observe the timer light on the Council dais.

Public Hearing: 420 Bell Ranch Road, Case No: TE26-003, Applicant:

Hartnack, APN: 298-121-68
Recommendation: That the City Council
Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council disclosures, Receive Public testimony, Close the Public Hearing.

1. If the City Council can make the required findings, adopt Resolution 2026- 102 approving the request for a second 12-month Time Extension for approvals and entitlements in Case No. DRP22-020 and SDP22-018 and setting the expiration date as August 23, 2027.

2. Public Hearing: 617 W. Circle Dr., Case No.: DRP25-012, Applicant:

Field, APN: 263-021-103
The proposed project meets the minimum zoning requirements under the SBMC, may be found to be consistent with the General Plan and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a DRP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

2. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2026-117 conditionally approving a DRP to construct a square foot addition and interior remodel at 617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach.

3. STAFF REPORTS
K.

K.1
K.2
L.

City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 14, 2026 Page 5 of 7 • Individual public comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.

Individuals attending in person who wish to address the City Council must complete a speaker slip and submit it to the City Clerk. Remote speakers must register by 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding a Wednesday City Council meeting. Please visit the City's website for Council meeting participation instructions. •
• Speakers are asked to observe the timer light on the Council dais.

Keeping of Residential Chickens and Bees Amendment - Adopt (2nd Reading) Ordinance 546
Recommendation: That the City Council
Consider adoption of Ordinance 546 (2nd Reading) amending Section S.B.M.C. 17.20.040(H) Animal Regulations of the Solana Beach Municipal Code.

1. Single Use Plastics Update - Adopt (2nd Reading) Ordinance 541 Recommendation: That the City Council
Adopt Ordinance 541 (2nd Reading) amending SBMC Chapter 5.03 to expand the ban on single-use plastics.

1. LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND CORRESPONDENCE
City Correspondence on proposed and existing state and federal laws.

WORK PLAN COMMENTS
Council comments on Work Plan status, needs, edits, etc. that were not discussed on prior items. The Work Plan was last adopted on June 24, 2026.

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

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
L.1
L.2
M.

City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 14, 2026 Page 6 of 7 Regional Appointed Committees / Standing Committees / Citizen Commissions Regional Committees: (outside agencies, appointed by this Council) a. City Selection Committee (meets twice a year) Primary-Heebner, Alternate-Edson b. Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) JPA: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito c. County Service Area 17: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Edson d. Escondido Creek Watershed Authority: Becker / Staff (no alternate). e. League of Ca. Cities’ San Diego County Executive Committee: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker. Subcommittees determined by its members. f. League of Ca. Cities’ Local Legislative Committee: Primary-MacDonald, AlternateBecker g. League of Ca. Cities’ Coastal Cities Issues Group (CCIG): Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker
h. North County Dispatch JPA: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker i. North County Transit District: Primary-Edson, Alternate-MacDonald j. Regional Solid Waste Association (RSWA): Primary-Zito, Alternate-MacDonald k. SANDAG: Primary-Heebner, 1st Alternate-Zito, 2nd Alternate-Edson. Subcommittees determined by its members.
l. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito m. San Dieguito River Valley JPA: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker n. San Elijo JPA: Primary-Zito, Primary-Becker, Alternate-City Manager o. 22nd Agricultural District Association Community Relations Committee: Primary-Edson, Primary-Heebner
Standing Committees: (All Primary Members) (Permanent Committees) a. Business Liaison Committee – Zito, Edson
b. Fire Dept. Management Governance & Organizational Evaluation – Edson, MacDonald c. Highway 101 / Cedros Ave. Development Committee – Heebner, Edson d. Parks and Recreation Committee – Zito, Edson
e. Public Arts Committee – Edson, Heebner
f. School Relations Committee – Becker, MacDonald
g. Solana Beach-Del Mar Relations Committee – Heebner, Edson Citizen Commission(s)
a. Climate & Resiliency Commission – Zito, Becker
Q. ADJOURN
City of Solana Beach City Council Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 14, 2026 Page 7 of 7 CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO

THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY,
& HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
Joint CLOSED SESSION Meeting
September 09, 2026 * 04:30 PM
City Hall / Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California Councilmember Zito remote participation for just cause pursuant to Government Code section 54953(j)(2)(B).

Action Minutes contain formal actions taken at a City Council meeting.

City Councilmembers
Mayor Lesa Heebner
Deputy Mayor Jill MacDonald - Council District 4
David A. Zito - Council District 1
Jewel Edson - Council District 3
Kristi Becker - Council District 2
Johanna Canlas, City Attorney Alyssa Muto, City Manager Angela Ivey, City Clerk A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Heebner called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

Present: Lesa Heebner, Jill MacDonald, David A. Zito, Jewel Edson, Kristi Becker

Absent: None
Also Present: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Johanna Canlas, City Attorney
B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (ONLY) None
C. CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to the California Government Code Section 54590, closed session items are listed below.

C.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
a. Worker's Compensation Appeals Board Case ADJ12595137 C.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Two (2) Potential cases.

C.3 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
One (1) Potential cases.

C.4 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
One (1) Potential cases.

ACTION: No reportable action.

D. ADJOURN
Mayor Heebner adjourned the meeting at 5:56 p.m.

Approved ___________________ Angela Ivey, City Clerk
Item J.1
City of Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting September 9, 2026 Page 1 of 8

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY,
& HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
Joint REGULAR Meeting
Wednesday, September 09, 2026 * 06:00 PM
Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California Councilmember Zito remote participation for just
cause pursuant to Government Code section 54953(j)(2)(B).

Action Minutes contain formal actions taken at a City Council meeting.

City Council meetings are video recorded and archived as a permanent record. The video recording captures the complete proceedings of the meeting and is available for viewing on the City's website.

Completed records containing meeting handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained from the records archive center.

CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Lesa Heebner
Deputy Mayor Jill MacDonald - Council District 4
David A. Zito - Council District 1
Jewel Edson - Council District 3
Kristi Becker - Council District 2
Johanna Canlas, City Attorney Alyssa Muto, City Manager Angela Ivey, City Clerk A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Heebner called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

Present: Lesa Heebner, Jill MacDonald, David A. Zito, Jewel Edson, Kristi Becker

Absent: None
Also

Present:

Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Johanna Canlas, City Attorney
Angela Ivey, City Clerk
Megan Bavin, Deputy City Clerk
Noah Alvey, Planning Director
Orelia DeBraal, Public Works Dir.

Rachel Jacobs, Finance Dir.

B. CLOSED SESSION REPORT No reportable action.

C. FLAG SALUTE
D. PROCLAMATIONS / CERTIFICATES / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Item J.1
City of Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting September 9, 2026 Page 2 of 8 • Angela Ivey, City Clerk, Retirement
Public Speakers: Greg Wade, Pouneh Sammak, Orelia DeBraal, Mo Sammak, Megan Bavin, Alyssa Muto, City Council, Angela Ivey.

E. PRESENTATIONS
Non-agendized items for informational purposes. Council shall not discuss, debate, or take official action.
• New Planning Director Noah Alvey
Speakers: Alyssa Muto, Noah Alvey
F. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Councilmember Becker to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

G. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS-COMMENTARY
H. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS-COMMENTARY
I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Comments relating to items on this evening's agenda will be taken when those items are heard. This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on matters relating to City business that do not appear on today's agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the City Council may not take action on matters raised during Oral Communications; however, the Council may refer a matter to the City Manager for placement on a future agenda.

Public Speakers: Stephen Dickinson - SDUHSD Facility Master Plan, Steve Ostrow - sand on Fletcher Cove, Andrew Yaris - Flock LPR, surveillance networks, Grai Andreaso - Flock cameras, Cindi Clemons - Civic and Historical Society program announcement.

J. CONSENT
Items listed on the Consent Calendar will be acted upon in a single motion unless removed by the City Council for separate discussion. Members of the public wishing to comment on Consent Calendar items will have one opportunity to speak and should include all of their comments during that presentation.

J.1 Minutes
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings held on July 1, 2026 and July 15, 2026.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to Item J.1
City of Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting September 9, 2026 Page 3 of 8 approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

J.2 Register of Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Ratify the register of demands for June 27, 2026 - August 14, 2026.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

J.3 The League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Appoint Deputy Mayor Jill MacDonald as primary delegate, City Manager Alyssa Muto as 1st alternate delegate, and Assistant City Manager Jocelyn Francis, as 2nd alternate as the City of Solana Beach voting delegates for the 2026 Annual General Assembly Meeting of the League of California Cities Annual Conference.

2. Authorize the City Clerk to attest to the appointments and submit the Official Voting Form to Cal Cities.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

J.4 Quarterly Investment Report
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Accept and file the Cash and Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2026.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

J.5 Street Maintenance & Repairs Project - Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2026-096:
a. Authorizing the City Council to accept, as complete, the 2025- 2026 Street Maintenance & Repairs Project, Bid No. 2025-07, performed by Eagle Paving, LLC.
b. Authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.
c. Authorizing the City Treasurer to release the 5% retention ($121,992.86) 15 days after acceptance of this Notice of Completion.

Item J.1
City of Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting September 9, 2026 Page 4 of 8 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

J.6 Crossing Guard Services
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2026-104 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with All City Management Services Inc. Extension No. 1 in an amount not to exceed
$239,695.82, and to Extension No. 2 in the amount not to exceed
$247,978.88.04, for crossing guard services.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

J.7 Citywide Tree Maintenance Services
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2026-108:
a. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with West Coast Arborists, for Citywide Tree Maintenance Services for Fiscal year 2026/2027 only, increasing the contract by $50,000 for a total, not to exceed amount of
$125,000.
b. Approving a Budget Transfer from Public Facilities Reserve account 100-33060 to the Public Facility Professional Services Account No. 1006570-65300, in the amount of $50,000 for FY 2026/27 only.
c. Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2026/2027 Adopted Budget accordingly.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

J.8 Addition of (1) Management Analyst Position, Management Employees Salary Schedule, and Job Descriptions.

Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2026-105 approving the updates to the FY 2026/2027 Salary and Compensation Schedule to include the following:
a. Approval of hiring one (1) full-time Management Analyst (Contracts Management) classification.

Item J.1
City of Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting September 9, 2026 Page 5 of 8 b. Approval of an adjustment to the Executive Assistant to the City Manager/Council pay grade and job description, from pay grade M1 to pay grade M3 on the FY 2026/2027 Management Employees’ Salary Schedule
c. Approval of an adjustment to the City Clerk pay grade and job description (Attachment 3), from pay grade M8 to pay grade M4 on the FY 2026/2027 Management Employees’ Salary Schedule 1.

2. Authorize the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2026/2027 Adopted Budget accordingly.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

K. PUBLIC HEARINGS
After considering all evidence presented, including written materials and oral testimony, the City Council will render its decision based on written findings supported by substantial evidence in the record. Pursuant to SBMC 2.04.210, an applicant or the applicant's designee(s) for a private development or business project subject to a public hearing is allotted a total of fifteen (15) minutes to address the City Council. A portion of this time may be reserved for rebuttal to comments made in opposition. All speakers are asked to observe the timer light on the Council dais.

K.1 Public Hearing: 713 Seabright Lane, Application: DRP25-009, Applicant: Casey, APN: 263-032-17
The proposed project meets the minimum zoning requirements under the SBMC, may be found to be consistent with the General Plan and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a DRP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project,
adopt Resolution 2026-107 conditionally approving a DRP to demolish the existing structures onsite and construct a replacement single-family residence with attached garages, an attached JADU and perform associated site improvements at 713 Seabright Lane, Solana Beach.

Councilmember Zito reported that he has property interest within 1,000 feet of the subject property, but outside the 500-foot radius requiring recusal and that he had no financial interest or benefit in the matter and stated that he is able to remain fair and impartial in his consideration of the item.

Item J.1
City of Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting September 9, 2026 Page 6 of 8 Mayor Heebner opened the public hearing. Council disclosures.

Staff presentation.

Jennifer Bolin, Architect, presentation.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Councilmember Becker to close the public hearing. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Becker and second by Councilmember MacDonald to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

K.2 Public Hearing: 718-731 Stevens Avenue, Case No:

TE26-002, Applicant: 3981 Garfield Street, LLC, APN:
298-164-10 & 13
Recommendation: 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.

Mayor Heebner opened the public hearing. Council disclosures.

Staff presentation.

No applicant presentation.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Councilmember Becker to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, MacDonald, Zito, Edson, Becker. Noes:

None. Motion carried unanimously.

L. STAFF REPORTS
• Individual public comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. • Individuals attending in person who wish to address the City Council must complete a speaker slip and submit it to the City Clerk. Remote speakers must register by 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding a Wednesday City Council meeting. Please visit the City's website for Council meeting participation instructions.
• Speakers are asked to observe the timer light on the Council dais.

Item J.1
City of Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting September 9, 2026 Page 7 of 8 L.1 Fire Department Presentation
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive and file the presentation.

Staff Presentation.

Mayor Heebner recessed the meeting for a break at 7:50 pm and reconvened at 7:56 pm.

L.2 Lomas Santa Fe - East Construction Project Update
Recommendation: 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.

Staff and Consultant Presentation.

Public Speakers: Al Evans, Douglas Alden
L.3 Alternative Parkway Materials
Recommendation: 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.

Staff Presentation.

M. LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND CORRESPONDENCE
City Correspondence on proposed and existing state and federal laws. • Support AB 762 Single-Use Vaping Devices: Prohibition • Oppose AB 2433 Housing Development: Density Bonus Law • Oppose SB 1117 Accessory Dwelling Units: Impact Fees
• Oppose AB 956 Streamlined Approval for Multiple Accessory Dwelling Units • Oppose AB 1621 Post entitlement Phase Permits & Housing Accountability Act • Oppose Forthcoming Wildfire Liability Reform Package that Would Limit Public Agency Recovery
N. WORK PLAN COMMENTS
Council comments on Work Plan status, needs, edits, etc. that were not discussed on prior items.

Item J.1
City of Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting September 9, 2026 Page 8 of 8 O. COMPENSATION & REIMBURSEMENT DISCLOSURE
GC: Article 2.3. Compensation: 53232.3. (a) Reimbursable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, meals, lodging, and travel. 53232.3 (d) Members of a legislative body shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the expense of the local agency “City” at the next regular meeting of the legislative body.

P. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Regional Appointed Committees / Standing Committees / Citizen Commissions Regional Committees: (outside agencies, appointed by this Council) a. City Selection Committee (meets twice a year) Primary-Heebner, Alternate-Edson b. Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) JPA: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito c. County Service Area 17: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Edson d. Escondido Creek Watershed Authority: Becker / Staff (no alternate). e. League of Ca. Cities’ San Diego County Executive Committee: PrimaryMacDonald, Alternate-Becker. Subcommittees determined by its members. f. League of Ca. Cities’ Local Legislative Committee: Primary-MacDonald, AlternateBecker g. League of Ca. Cities’ Coastal Cities Issues Group (CCIG): Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker
h. North County Dispatch JPA: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker i. North County Transit District: Primary-Edson, Alternate-MacDonald j. Regional Solid Waste Association (RSWA): Primary-Zito, Alternate-MacDonald k. SANDAG: Primary-Heebner, 1st Alternate-Zito, 2nd Alternate-Edson.

Subcommittees determined by its members.
l. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito m. San Dieguito River Valley JPA: Primary-MacDonald, Alternate-Becker n. San Elijo JPA: Primary-Zito, Primary-Becker, Alternate-City Manager o. 22nd Agricultural District Association Community Relations Committee: PrimaryEdson, Primary-Heebner Standing Committees: (All Primary Members) (Permanent Committees) a. Business Liaison Committee – Zito, Edson
b. Fire Dept. Management Governance & Organizational Evaluation – Edson, MacDonald c. Highway 101 / Cedros Ave. Development Committee – Heebner, Edson d. Parks and Recreation Committee – Zito, Edson
e. Public Arts Committee – Edson, Heebner
f. School Relations Committee – Becker, MacDonald
g. Solana Beach-Del Mar Relations Committee – Heebner, Edson Citizen Commission(s)
a. Climate & Resiliency Commission – Zito, Becker
Q. ADJOURN
Mayor Heebner adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m.

Approved ______________ Angela Ivey, City Clerk
Item J.1
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # J.2.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department – Rachel Jacobs, Finance Director SUBJECT: Register of Demands

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

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

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
The register of demands for September 12, 2026, through September 25, 2026, reflects total expenditures of $766,246.75 from various City sources.

WORK PLAN N/A

OPTIONS
• Ratify the register of demands.
• Do not ratify and provide direction.

Item J.2
October 14, 2026
Register of Demands

Page 2 of 2 ends

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Ratify the above register of demands.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Att 1 – Register of Demands 10-14-26 SR
Item J.2
Page: 1 of 6
City of Solana Beach
Register of Demands

9/12/2026 - 9/25/2026
Department
Vendor Description Date
Check/EFT
Number Amount
100 - GENERAL FUND
US BANK CALCARD PREPAYMENT INCREASE 09/17/2026 110233 $10,000.00 DEL MAR FAIRGROUNDS RFND: OVERPAYMENT YR 4 SUPP PARIMUTUEL

PAYMENT
09/17/2026 110236 $122.58
CALPERS R06 PERS 09/11/26 PD (09/16/26 PERS) 09/16/2026 990120492 $86,198.23 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. R06 FSA/DCA CONTRIBUTIONS 09/24/2026 9003308 $2,443.69 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. R06 FSA/DCA CONTRIBUTIONS 09/24/2026 9003308 $1,923.50 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. RC03 FSA CONTRIBUTIONS 09/24/2026 9003308 $266.67 MISSION SQUARE 302817 Payroll Run 1 - Warrant R07 09/24/2026 9003299 $9,341.28 SOLANA BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC Payroll Run 1 - Warrant R07 09/24/2026 9003306 $1,079.00 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Payroll Run 1 - Warrant R07 09/24/2026 110255 $207.39 COURT-ORDERED DEBT COLLECTIONS Payroll Run 1 - Warrant R07 09/24/2026 110251 $359.74 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $111,942.08
1005100 - CITY COUNCIL
LA COLONIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FY27 - COMMUNITY GRANTS 09/17/2026 110241 $5,000.00 TOTAL CITY COUNCIL $5,000.00
1005150 - CITY CLERK
GRANICUS INC FY 27-GRANICUS RECORDS REQUEST SOFTWARE 09/17/2026 9003284 $6,183.82 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL INSECT REPELENT/HIGHLIGHTERS 09/24/2026 9003307 $32.15 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SVC LEASE: 0012725773 - 07/30/26-10/29/26 09/24/2026 9003302 $794.45 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CA MUNICIPAL LAW HANDBOOK 7/26 09/24/2026 110260 $729.61 UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY STMNT:0000648452-2026 BALLOT MEASURE-CHNS 09/24/2026 110267 $641.38 UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY STMNT:0000648452-2026 BALLOT MEASURE-TAG 09/24/2026 110267 $543.32 UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY STMNT:0000648452-2026 BALLOT MEASURE-SPNSH 09/24/2026 110267 $547.05 UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY STMNT:0000648452-2026 BALLOT MEASURE-VIET 09/24/2026 110267 $724.96 UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY STMNT:0000648452-2026 BALLOT MEASURE-ENG 09/24/2026 110267 $390.54 TOTAL CITY CLERK $10,587.28
1005200 - CITY MANAGER
VERIZON WIRELESS SD 670601022-00001 - 07/24/26-08/23/26 09/17/2026 110245 $38.37 KFORCE INC. TEMP - WE 09/10/26 CONTRACTS PROJECT WORK-CM 09/24/2026 9003296 $1,728.00 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 06/29/26-07/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $38.37 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $81.55 TOTAL CITY MANAGER $1,886.29
1005300 - GENERAL FUND - FINANCE
NORTHERN CONSULTING ACTUARIES, INC. AUG 26 - ACTUARIAL SERVICES 09/24/2026 110269 $9,500.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND - FINANCE $9,500.00
1005350 - SUPPORT SERVICES
CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO AUG 26-WATER/SEPT 26 - EQUIPMENT 09/17/2026 110235 $132.70 CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO AUG 26-WATER - LC 09/17/2026 110235 $86.20 CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO AUG 26-WATER / SEP 26-EQUIPMENT REFUND 09/17/2026 110235 ($8.11) CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO SEP 26-EQUIPMENT - PW 09/17/2026 110235 $77.98 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - CH 09/24/2026 110272 $83.29 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - CH 09/24/2026 110272 $284.84 Attachment 1
Item J.2
Page: 2 of 6
XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROS FIERY- CH 09/24/2026 110272 $195.19 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - CH 09/24/2026 110272 $63.11 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - CH 09/24/2026 110272 $341.56 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - CH 09/24/2026 110272 $128.51 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - CH 09/24/2026 110272 $284.84 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX FIERY- CH 09/24/2026 110272 $195.19 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX FIERY- CH 09/24/2026 110272 $195.19 TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES $2,060.49
1005400 - HUMAN RESOURCES
EMBROIDERY IMAGE POLO EMBROIDERY 09/17/2026 110240 $45.98 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JUL 26 - FINGERPRINT APPS 09/17/2026 110237 $160.00 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUG 26-FINGERPRINT APPS 09/24/2026 110253 $96.00 TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $301.98
1005450 - INFORMATION SERVICES
COX COMMUNICATIONS INC 0013410039730701 - 08/19/26-09/18/26 09/17/2026 110234 $228.47 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 670601022-00001 - 07/24/26-08/23/26 09/17/2026 110245 $118.03 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $90.34 TOTAL INFORMATION SERVICES $436.84
1005550 - PLANNING
CENTRAL SQUARE FY2027 TRAKIT & ETRAKIT 09/24/2026 9003293 $6,978.65 TOTAL PLANNING $6,978.65
1005560 - BUILDING SERVICES
WILLDAN AUG 26 - PROF SVC 09/24/2026 9003310 $36,604.55 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $65.78 TOTAL BUILDING SERVICES $36,670.33
1005590 - CODE ENFORCEMENT
VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $149.56 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $115.51 TOTAL CODE ENFORCEMENT $265.07
1006120 - FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005512-000 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $1,296.80 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - FS 09/24/2026 110272 $37.89 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - FS 09/24/2026 110272 $80.22 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - FS 09/24/2026 110272 $88.46 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX - FS 09/24/2026 110272 $295.09 XEROX CORPORATION AUG 26 - XEROX FIERY - FS 09/24/2026 110272 $200.16 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 06/29/26-07/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $536.41 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 06/29/26-07/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $175.17 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $234.03 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $273.60 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $254.28 RENEWELL FLEET SERVICE LLC CAB DOOR PAIR/FREIGHT 09/24/2026 110261 $1,730.98 TOTAL FIRE DEPARTMENT $5,203.09
1006130 - ANIMAL CONTROL
HABITAT PROTECTION, INC DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 09/17/2026 9003285 $555.00 SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY & S.P.C.A. JUL 26-ANIMAL SERVICES 09/24/2026 110263 $7,891.00 SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY & S.P.C.A. AUG 26-ANIMAL SERVICES 09/24/2026 110263 $7,891.00 SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY & S.P.C.A. SEP 26 - ANIMAL SERVICES 09/24/2026 110263 $7,891.00 TOTAL ANIMAL CONTROL $24,228.00
1006170 - MARINE SAFETY
Item J.2
Page: 3 of 6
ADRIAN G CARVAJAL MS BUILDING WINDOW TINT 09/18/2026 110246 $386.00 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012281 - 07/25/26-08/24/26 09/24/2026 110248 $110.11 AT&T CALNET 3 9391053651 - 07/25/26-08/24/26 09/24/2026 110249 $285.24 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 06/29/26-07/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $233.56 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $278.73 BILL SMITH FOREIGN CAR SERVICE INC OIL CHANGE/FILTER/RADIO BATTERY 09/24/2026 110250 $272.72 CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO SEP 26- EQUIPMENT 09/24/2026 110252 $60.20 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $1,992.63 TOTAL MARINE SAFETY $3,619.19
1006510 - ENGINEERING
VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $49.97 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 362455526-00001 - 08/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110268 $5.54 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 09/2026 - 09/2027 SUBSCRIPTION 09/24/2026 9003295 $3,150.00 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $176.65 TOTAL ENGINEERING $3,382.16
1006520 - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC FY27 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 09/17/2026 110242 $29.00 IDRAINS LLC P-FCS SITES - STORM CLEANING - 28 09/24/2026 110247 $3,080.00 IDRAINS LLC H-CDS CLEAN/J-VACUUM SEWER MANHOLE 09/24/2026 110247 $1,700.00 IDRAINS LLC H-CLEAN CDS/J VACUUM SEWER 09/24/2026 110247 $1,700.00 IDRAINS LLC O-SEWER/STORM MAINT - 4 09/24/2026 110247 $1,340.00 CLEAN EARTH ENVIROMENTAL SOLUTIONS AUG 26 - HHW COLLECTION 09/24/2026 9003294 $1,593.08 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $49.97 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 362455526-00001 - 08/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110268 $5.53 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-014 - 08/04/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $329.61 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $513.88 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES $10,341.07
1006530 - STREET MAINTENANCE
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC FY27 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 09/17/2026 110242 $47.45 BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC GLOVES/CAR WASH/SPARK PLUGS/SPRAYER/HOLSTER 09/17/2026 110238 $172.34 ARTURO ZERMENO MILEAGE - 09/06/26 09/17/2026 110230 $39.52 JOSE GARCIA MILEAGE - 08/16/26 09/17/2026 9003286 $45.60 BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC SAW BLADE 09/24/2026 110254 $29.35 BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC CONCRETE MIX 09/24/2026 110254 $28.68 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $465.69 BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC HANDYMAN HOLSTER 09/24/2026 110254 $54.79 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC SEP 26 - TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES 09/24/2026 110270 $1,633.33 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA AUG 26 - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES 09/24/2026 9003300 $2,518.11 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $49.97 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 362455526-00001 - 08/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110268 $5.53 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 011695-000 - 08/01/26-08/31/26 09/24/2026 110264 $103.44 TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE $5,193.80
1006540 - TRAFFIC SAFETY
TRAFFIC SUPPLY, INC FY27 TRAFFIC SUPPLY INC 09/17/2026 9003290 $92.44 TRAFFIC SUPPLY, INC FY27 TRAFFIC SUPPLY INC 09/17/2026 9003290 $337.67 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS AUG 26 - RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT 09/17/2026 9003291 $8,408.04 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012279 - 07/24/26-08/23/26 09/17/2026 110232 $59.48 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS - 08/16/26-08/29/26 09/24/2026 9003292 $13,535.35 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $35.69 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 362455526-00001 - 08/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110268 $3.95 TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY $22,472.62
Item J.2
Page: 4 of 6
1006550 - STREET CLEANING
PRIDE INDUSTRIES AUG 26 - TRASH ABATEMENT SERVICES 09/17/2026 110243 $2,232.26 SCA OF CA, LLC JUL 26 - STREET SWEEPING SERVICES 09/24/2026 9003305 $6,005.17 SCA OF CA, LLC AUG 26 - STREET SWEEPING SERVICES 09/24/2026 9003304 $6,005.17 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 011695-000 - 08/01/26-08/31/26 09/24/2026 110264 $60.75 TOTAL STREET CLEANING $14,303.35
1006560 - PARK MAINTENANCE
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC FY27 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 09/17/2026 110242 $35.59 RANCHO SANTA FE SECURITY SYS INC FY27 ALARM MONITORING 09/17/2026 110244 $168.00 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA AUG 26 - LANDSCAPING SERVICES 09/17/2026 9003289 $316.89 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA AUG 26 - LANDSCAPING SERVICES 09/17/2026 9003289 $1,603.20 BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC THREADLOCKER/QUICK LINK/WIRE ROPE CLIP 09/24/2026 110254 $44.95 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 012448-001 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $140.73 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-010 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $365.19 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-011 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $526.14 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-012 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $1,952.52 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-013 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $269.79 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-001 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $152.20 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 012448-000 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $200.40 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-002 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $545.22 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-004 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $123.51 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-005 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $333.40 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-006 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $200.40 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-007 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $155.31 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-009 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $123.51 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 362455526-00001 - 08/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110268 $7.91 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-018 - 08/01/26-08/31/26 09/24/2026 110264 $585.87 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-019 - 08/01/26-08/31/26 09/24/2026 110264 $2,403.11 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $96.35 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-000 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $123.51 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-001 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $123.51 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC SEP 26 - TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES 09/24/2026 110270 $466.67 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA AUG 26 - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES 09/24/2026 9003300 $9,250.52 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $71.39 TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE $20,385.79
1006570 - PUBLIC FACILITIES
PRIDE INDUSTRIES AUG 26 - TRASH ABATEMENT SERVICES 09/17/2026 110243 $2,232.27 BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC COMPRESSION OUTLET HOSE 09/17/2026 110238 $28.95 BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC SPRAYER/GLOVES 09/17/2026 110238 $75.66 SPECIALIZED ELEVATOR CORP SEP 26 - ELEVATOR PREVENTATIVE MAINT/REPAIR 09/17/2026 9003282 $225.13 W.W. GRAINGER, INC PUSH BUTTON ASSEMBLY 09/17/2026 9003283 $200.22 DCL ENTERPRISES DOOR REPAIR/HARDWARE 09/17/2026 9003287 $272.32 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA AUG 26 - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES 09/24/2026 9003300 $3,063.55 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $160.59 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-008 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $850.50 SYMONS FIRE PROTECTION FY27 - QTRLY SPRINKLER INSPECTION-FCCC 09/24/2026 110266 $370.00 SYMONS FIRE PROTECTION FY27 - QTRLY SPRINKLER INSPECTION-CH 09/24/2026 110266 $300.00 LALLEY CONSTRUCTION FY27 - CAR CHARGING STATIONS 09/24/2026 110259 $1,440.00 BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC GLOVES/SUPPLY LINE OUTLET 09/24/2026 110254 $78.26

BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC PUTTY KNIFE/SPACKLE/PAINT BRUSHES/WALL TXTR SOLVNT
09/24/2026 110254 $118.42
Item J.2
Page: 5 of 6
DCL ENTERPRISES ADDING LOCK TO DOOR/HARDWARE 09/17/2026 9003287 $156.50 REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES INC FY27 CARPET REPLACEMENT 09/24/2026 9003303 $2,300.00 REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES INC FY27 CARPET REPLACEMENT 09/24/2026 9003303 $2,300.00 REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES INC FY27 CARPET REPLACEMENT 09/24/2026 9003303 $2,300.00 SYMONS FIRE PROTECTION FY27 SEMI ANNL KITCHEN FIRE SUPPRESSION

INSPCTN-LC
09/24/2026 110266 $474.00
SYMONS FIRE PROTECTION FY27 QUARTERLY SPRINKLER INSPECTION-FS 09/24/2026 110266 $370.00 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $17,316.37
1007110 - GF-RECREATION
RAUL HERNANDEZ LC MOVIE NIGHT-EQUIPMENT 09/17/2026 110229 $1,782.50 TOTAL GF-RECREATION $1,782.50
1105900 - MEASURE S - 1% TRANSACTION TAX
HDL HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOC FY27 Q1- MEASURE S - AUDIT/ANALYSIS CONTRACT 09/24/2026 110256 $637.15 TOTAL MEASURE S - 1% TRANSACTION TAX $637.15
1106510 - MEASURE S - ENGINEERING
NASLAND ENGINEERING FY27 - 126-033.1 CLIFF ST DRAINAGE 09/17/2026 9003288 $21,390.00 TOTAL MEASURE S - ENGINEERING $21,390.00
1205460 - SELF INSURANCE RETENTION
SEASIDE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING CR26.708-TREE DAMAGE 09/24/2026 110265 $6,925.00 TOTAL SELF INSURANCE RETENTION $6,925.00
1605360 - OPEB OBLIGATION
MIDAMERICA OCTOBER 26 09/24/2026 9003298 $8,805.00
TOTAL OPEB OBLIGATION $8,805.00
2037510 - HIGHWAY 101 LANDSC #33
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA AUG 26 - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES 09/24/2026 9003300 $3,464.41 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-000 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $760.40 TOTAL HIGHWAY 101 LANDSC #33 $4,224.81
2087580 - COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINT
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA AUG 26 - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES 09/24/2026 9003300 $6,723.93 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-020 - 08/01/26-08/31/26 09/24/2026 110264 $4,268.95 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-003 - 07/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $228.40 TOTAL COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINT $11,221.28
2117600 - STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $14.28 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 362455526-00001 - 08/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110268 $1.58 TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT $15.86
2706120 - PUBLIC SAFETY- FIRE
VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 06/29/26-07/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $165.18 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $60.06 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY- FIRE $225.24
4536510 - PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT (PDIF)
NASLAND ENGINEERING FY27 - 126-032.1 LC PARK IMPROVEMENTS 09/17/2026 9003288 $5,515.00 TOTAL PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT (PDIF) $5,515.00
4546510 - TRANSP IMPACT FEE (TIF)
KLEINFELDER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC JUL 26 - LMSFE EAST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 09/24/2026 110257 $5,030.99 KLEINFELDER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC AUG 26 - LMSFE EAST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 09/24/2026 110257 $18,327.53 TOTAL TRANSP IMPACT FEE (TIF) $23,358.52
459 - MISC. CAPITAL PROJECTS
PACIFIC POWER ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY FIRE STATION GENERATOR -RETENTION 09/24/2026 9003301 ($1,136.05) Item J.2
Page: 6 of 6
TOTAL MISC. CAPITAL PROJECTS ($1,136.05)
4596510 - MISC.CAPITALPROJECTS-ENG
DOMUSSTUDIO ARCHITECTURE LLP JUL 26 - 9449.02 MS CENTR 09/17/2026 110239 $1,200.00 KLEINFELDER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC JUL 26 - LMSFE EAST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 09/24/2026 110257 $3,603.98 KLEINFELDER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC AUG 26 - LMSFE EAST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 09/24/2026 110257 $13,129.02 LA JOLLA STONE ETCHING COURTYARD TILE ENGRAVING 09/24/2026 110258 $400.00 PACIFIC POWER ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY FIRE STATION GENERATOR 09/24/2026 9003301 $22,721.15 TOTAL MISC.CAPITALPROJECTS-ENG $41,054.15
5096510 - SANITATION-CIP-ENG
NASLAND ENGINEERING FY27 - 126-031.1 SEWER PROJECT 09/17/2026 9003288 $940.00 TOTAL SANITATION-CIP-ENG $940.00
5097700 - SANITATION
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC FY27 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 09/17/2026 110242 $19.77 IDRAINS LLC C - SEWER LINE CLEANING - 43,216 09/17/2026 110228 $27,226.08 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012277 - 07/24/26-08/23/26 09/17/2026 110231 $16.79 IDRAINS LLC H-VACUUM/JETT LINE - SVC MANHOLE 09/24/2026 110247 $2,375.00 IDRAINS LLC H-CDS CLEAN/J-VACUUM SEWER MANHOLE 09/24/2026 110247 $675.00 IDRAINS LLC H-CLEAN CDS/J VACUUM SEWER 09/24/2026 110247 $675.00 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 962428212-00001 - 07/29/26-08/28/26 09/24/2026 110268 $14.28 VERIZON WIRELESS SD 362455526-00001 - 08/02/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110268 $1.58 SAN DIEGO COUNTY JUL 26- DOCUMENT RECORDING 09/24/2026 110262 $125.00 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-014 - 08/04/26-09/01/26 09/24/2026 110264 $988.83 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 08/08/26-09/07/26 - AUTO FUEL 09/24/2026 110271 $192.71 TOTAL SANITATION $32,310.04
REPORT TOTAL: $469,342.95
Item J.2
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # J.3.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works and Engineering Department – Olga Reyes, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Yunex Traffic, Inc. Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance Amendment

BACKROUND
The Public Works and Engineering Department is responsible for the maintenance and repair of sixteen City-owned traffic signals, three rectangular rapid flashing beacons, and two school safety zone lights. In addition, the department coordinates the operation of four additional signals in partnership with Caltrans and the City of Del Mar.

Traffic signals and lighting systems require specialized electrical expertise, advanced diagnostic programming, and certified technical training. To ensure consistent service quality and operational efficiency, services are provided by a qualified, certified contractor selected and managed by the Public Works Division. The contractor performs signal and lighting maintenance and repairs in accordance with the City's service requirements, standards, and schedules, helping preserve and protect the City's infrastructure.

This item is before the City Council for consideration of Resolution 2026-114 (Attachment 1) to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Yunex Traffic, Inc., the City’s current service provider for traffic signal and safety lighting services, in the amount of $25,000 for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

DISCUSSION
In May 2023, the City Council approved Resolution 2023-062 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Yunex Traffic, Inc. (Yunex) for Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance in the amount of $32,669.72 with the option to extend the agreement for four additional one-year terms, at the City’s discretion. Yunex has maintained the City’s traffic signal system for several years and possesses extensive operational knowledge of the City’s network, equipment, and system configurations, while providing responsive, accountable, and quality service delivery.

Item J.3
October 14, 2026
Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Contract Amendment

Page 2 of 3 ends

Contracted services include routine monthly inspections, preventative maintenance, troubleshooting of electrical and communication issues, and the replacement of critical components such as signal heads, controllers, cabinets, wiring, and ancillary hardware at the direction of City staff. The contract also includes unit-price bid items for additional highly technical services, including controller cabinet replacements, loop detector repairs and replacements, and software modifications required to maintain proper signal timing, coordination, and traffic flow.

Many of components of the City’s decades-old traffic signal system have exceeded their useful life and are incompatible with modern technology; in addition the interconnect network that once coordinated communication between intersections is no longer operational. To fully understand the needs of the system, the Engineering Division is working with the City's traffic engineering consultant to develop a comprehensive condition assessment that will identify prioritized maintenance projects for the existing system, options to restore the interconnect network, and strategic options to modernize the system.

As part of modernizing the system, the City recently installed NoTraffic radar-and-video detection at five (5) intersections on Lomas Santa Fe Drive, west of Interstate 5. Unlike traditional inductive loops embedded in the pavement, the overhead sensors collect realtime vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle data. The data allows staff to refine signal timing to improve and circulation and plan future roadway projects that enhance safety for all users.

During integration of the new sensors with the existing signal equipment, staff identified two critical projects needed to restore reliable signal operation:
• At all five intersections, the controller clocks drift out of alignment with the NoTraffic system, disrupting coordination between intersections. A GPS time-synchronization system is needed to keep the controllers and sensors on a common time standard across all five intersections.
• Existing electrical connections at the Solana Hills Drive intersection cause the signal to intermittently lose communication and switch to flashing-red mode, which functions as an all-way stop. Upgrading the electrical connections is needed to restore reliable operation at the intersection.

Staff is recommending amending the contract to increase funding by $25,000 to compete the projects and help mitigate the risk of operational disruptions.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities), as the amendment provides for the maintenance, repair, and minor alteration of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing use.

FISCAL IMPACT
Item J.3
October 14, 2026
Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Contract Amendment

Page 3 of 3 ends

The Fiscal Year 2026/27 Adopted Budget includes $32,669.72 for the maintenance and repair of City-owned traffic signals and safety lighting. There is sufficient budget available in the 2026510.66610 - Gas Tax, Construction account that was rolled over from Fiscal Year 2025/26 for Traffic Signal Upgrades, that can be transferred to the Professional Services (1006540-65300) section of Fiscal Year 2026/27 Operating Budget to cover the estimated project costs of $25,000.

If approved, the contract amendment will increase the not-to-exceed annual contract amount with Yunex from $32,669.72 to $57,669.72 for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

WORK PLAN
Although traffic signal maintenance is not explicitly identified in the current Work Plan, ensuring the proper operation, rehabilitation, and modernization of the City’s signal infrastructure is essential. Proactive and routine signal maintenance addresses longstanding deferred maintenance needs, reduces the likelihood of equipment failures, and supports the City’s broader goal of maintaining reliable, safe, and resilient public infrastructure. This work is fundamental to preserving operational continuity, enhancing traffic safety, and sustaining the overall performance of the City’s transportation network.

OPTIONS
• Approve staff recommendation.
• Provide alternative directions.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 2026-114:
a. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Yunex Traffic, Inc., for Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2026/27 only, increasing the contract by $25,000 for a total amount not to exceed $57,669.72. b. Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2026/27 Adopted Budget accordingly.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2026-114
Item J.3
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2026-114

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN

AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH YUNEX, LLC, FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL
AND SAFETY LIGHTING MAINTENACE.

WHEREAS, In May 2023, the City Council approved Resolution 2023-062 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Yunex Traffic, Inc. (Yunex) for Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Maintenance in the amount of $32,669.72 with the option to extend the agreement for four additional oneyear terms, at the City’s discretion; and WHEREAS, The City has executed three one-year extensions and this is the first amendment for Fiscal Year 2026/2027; and
WHEREAS, The City completed substantial traffic signal upgrades along Lomas Santa Fe Drive west of Interstate 5, including radar-and-video detection sensors that collect real-time vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle data; and
WHEREAS, The upgrades allow staff to refine signal timing to improve circulation and plan for future roadway projects that enhance safety for all users; and WHEREAS, Additional services are needed for projects to address system performance due to outdated equipment and hardware in the City’s existing traffic signal system; and
WHEREAS, The estimated project costs total $25,000 and a contract amendment is needed to increase the not-to-exceed annual contract amount with Yunex from $32,669.72 to $57,669.72 for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

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 City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Yunex Traffic, Inc., for as-needed maintenance services for Fiscal Year 2026/27 only. Increasing the contract by $25,000 for a total amount not to exceed $57,669.72.

3. That the City Council authorizes the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2026/27 Adopted Budget accordingly.

Item J.3
Resolution 2026-114
Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting Contract Amendment

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 2026, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________________ ______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney MEGAN BAVIN, City Clerk Item J.3
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # J.4.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works/Engineering Department - Josh Blea, Associate Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. On-Call Repair Services Amendment

BACKROUND
The Public Works Division is responsible for the inspection, repair, and regulatory compliance of all municipal facilities, including the Fire Station, City Hall, the Marine Safety Building, La Colonia Community Center, Fletcher Cove Park, and the Public Works Maintenance Facility. On-call services are used for planned maintenance, emergencies, and unforeseen facility needs. External technical expertise and general contracting services are required to complete work in accordance with City standards and schedules.

This supplemental support helps protect long-term public assets and maintain City operations.

This item is before the City Council for consideration of Resolution 2026-115 (Attachment 1) to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc, the City’s current service provider, for on-call repair services, for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

DISCUSSION
In April 2024, the City Council approved Resolution 2024-031 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. (Real Estate) for On-Call Repair Services in the amount of $50,000, with the option to extend the agreement for four additional one-year terms, at the City’s discretion.

Real Estate was selected following a competitive process in which two proposals were submitted and subsequently two service contracts were awarded.

The agreement provides the Public Works Division with on-call support for a broad range of maintenance, repair, and improvement needs at City-owned facilities. Services may include, but are not limited to, carpentry, electrical, concrete, masonry, drywall, plumbing, and other related skilled trades necessary to maintain City buildings and facilities in a safe, functional, and well-maintained condition. The availability of an on-call contractor provides Item J.4
October 14, 2026
On-Call Repair Services Contract Amendment

Page 2 of 3 ends

a timely, efficient mechanism to address planned maintenance, emergencies, and unforeseen facility needs, including after-hours plumbing repairs, damage to facilities by third-parties, and Fire Station modifications to accommodate increased staffing. Recent unanticipated services totaled $10,500 for:

1. City Hall ($2,500): Repairs to facility damage caused by a fallen Torrey Pine tree in July 2026.

2. La Colonia Park ($8,000): Repairs to the Veterans Courtyard water fountain in September 2026 following a vehicle accident that destroyed the electrical conduit, wiring, spotlights, and wall fixtures.

Staff is recommending amending the contract to increase funding by $25,000. The proposed contract amendment provides flexibility to address priority maintenance and repair needs, respond promptly to emergencies, and minimize delays that could result in more costly facility repairs or service interruptions.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
All work covered by this agreement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year 2026/27 Adopted Budget includes $50,000 for on-call repair services at City facilities. Staff is requesting an appropriation of $25,000 from the Public Facility Reserve Account 100-33060 to Public Facilities Professional Services Account 1006570- 65300 to fund the proposed contract amendment. If approved, the contract amount amendment will increase the not-to-exceed annual contract amount with real Estate from $50,000 to $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

This $25,000 increase includes $10,500 in unanticipated expenditures incurred for facility repairs at City Hall following a fallen Torrey Pine tree in July 2026 ($2,500), and repairs to the La Colonia Park Veterans Courtyard water fountain following a vehicle accident in September 2026 ($8,000). The City is coordinating with the responsible parties and their insurance carriers regarding reimbursement. While the precise reimbursement amount is not yet known, any recovered funds will be used to reimburse the Public Facility Reserve Account.

WORK PLAN
Although as-needed handyman services are not identified as standalone items in the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Work Plan, these services support the City’s Community Well-Being program area and are consistent with the City’s ongoing commitment to maintaining safe, functional, accessible, and well-maintained public facilities and infrastructure. These services help ensure that City facilities remain safe, operational, and in good condition for staff and the community.

Item J.4
October 14, 2026
On-Call Repair Services Contract Amendment

Page 3 of 3 ends

OPTIONS
• Approve staff recommendation.
• Provide alternative directions.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 2026-115:
a. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc., for oncall repair services for Fiscal Year 2026/27, increasing the contract by $25,000 for a total, not to exceed amount of $75,000.
b. Approving a Budget Transfer from Public Facilities Reserve account 100- 33060 to the Public Facility Professional Services Account No. 1006570- 65300, in the amount of $25,000 for FY 2026/27.
c. Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2026/27 Adopted Budget accordingly.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2026-115
Item J.4
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 2026-115

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REAL
ESTATE CONSULTING AND SERVICES, INC., FOR ONCALL REPAIR SERVICES WHEREAS, In April 2024, the City Council approved Resolution 2024-031 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. (Real Estate) for On-Call Repairs Services in the amount of $50,000, with the option to extend the agreement for four additional oneyear terms, at the City’s discretion; and WHEREAS, Real Estate recently completed unanticipated services for City facilities, totally $10,500 and additional funding is needed is address priority maintenance and repair needs, respond promptly to emergencies, and minimize delays that could result in more costly facility damage or service interruptions; and WHEREAS, The estimated additional on-call services total $25,000 and a contract amendment is needed to increase the not-to-exceed annual contract amount with Real Estate from $50,000 to $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2026/27; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Real Estate, for On-Call Repair Services for Fiscal year 2026/2027, increasing the contract by $25,000 for a total, not to exceed amount of $75,000.

3. That the City Council authorizes a Budget Appropriations increase for the Public Facility Professional Services Account No. 1006570-65300, in the amount of $25,000 for FY 2026/27 only.

4. That the City Council authorizes the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2026/2027 Adopted Budget accordingly.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 2026, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
Item J.4
Resolution 2026-115
Handyman Services

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney MEGAN BAVIN, Interim City Clerk Item J.4
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # J.5.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works and Engineering Department – Luis Carrillo, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement Project Notice of Completion

BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the Solana Beach Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement, Bid 2025-004, to Pacific Power Engineering Technology, Inc.

This item is before the City Council for consideration of Resolution 2026-106 (Attachment 1), reporting the final project costs, accepting the project as complete, and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

DISCUSSION
Pacific Power Engineering Technology, Inc. (Pacific) completed all work on the Solana Beach Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement Project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Project highlights include:
 Decommissioned and removed the legacy emergency standby generator.  Installed a new 60 kW emergency standby generator to ensure uninterrupted power.
 Integrated a new Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) for seamless power transitions.

The base contract amount was $243,000 with a $30,000 (12%) contingency and total final construction cost was $260,023. Two contract change orders totaling $17,023 were approved by the City Manager, funded through contingency funding:

Change Order No. 1 and 2 provided for the rental of a portable emergency standby generator, including delivery, installation, operation, and the replacement and repair of irrigation lines. The temporary generator was necessary to maintain continuous backup Item J.5
October 14, 2026
Fire Station Generator NOC

Page 2 of 3 ends

power at the Fire Station during the transition from the existing generator to the new generator. The rental ensured that emergency power remained available throughout the decommissioning and removal of the existing generator, as well as the installation, commissioning, startup, testing, and inspection of the new generator. This temporary measure helped maintain the Fire Station’s operational readiness and ensured continuity of critical emergency services throughout the generator replacement process Upon Council approval, the City will release the 5% retention ($13,001.15) 35 days after acceptance of the Notice of Completion.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
All work was performed within existing footprint of the Fire Station building and parking lot and therefore the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project was completed within the budget authorized and partially used the contingency.

The base contract amount was $243,000 with a $30,000 (12%) contingency, and total final construction cost was $260,023, for a project savings of $12,977.

Project funding, at the time of the award, was from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Funding included $243,000 from the CIP fund, and $30,000 from the Capital Projects Fund – Unreserved Fund.

The unspent budget of $12,977 will remain in the the Miscellaneous CIP Fund for FY 2027 unexpected capital or equipment needs.

WORK PLAN
The Solana Beach Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement Project was included in the City’s FY 2024/25 Work Plan. This project supports the City’s Community Well-Being program area and is consistent with the City’s ongoing commitment to maintaining safe, functional, and well-maintained public facilities and infrastructure.

OPTIONS
• Approve staff recommendation.
• Provide alternative direction.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:

Item J.5
October 14, 2026
Fire Station Generator NOC

Page 3 of 3 ends

1. Adopt Resolution 2026-106:
a. Authorizing the City Council to accept, as complete, the FY 2024-2025 Solana Beach Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement, Bid No. 2025-004, performed by Pacific Power Engineering Technology, Inc. b. Authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project. c. Authorizing the City Treasurer to release the 5% retention ($13,001.15) 35 days after acceptance of this Notice of Completion.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2026-106
Item J.5
RESOLUTION 2026-106

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING AS

COMPLETE THE SOLANA BEACH FIRE STATION
EMERGENCY GENERATOR PROJECT, BID NO. 2025-004

AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE

OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the Solana Beach Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement, Bid 2025-004, to Pacific Power Engineering Technology, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, Pacific Power Engineering Technology, Inc., completed all work on this project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, Two change orders were executed during construction for additional work related to the installation of a new generator at the request of the City.

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

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Council accepts, as complete, the FY 2024-2025 Solana Beach Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement, Bid No. 2025-004, performed by Pacific Power Engineering Technology, Inc.

3. That the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

4. That the City Council authorizes the City Treasurer to release the 5% retention 35 days after acceptance of the Notice of Completion.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 2026, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
Item J.5
Resolution 2026-106
NOC – Fire Station Emergency Generator Replacement

Page 2 of 2 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney MEGAN BAVIN, Interim City Clerk Item J.5
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # K.1.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department – Katie Benson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: 420 Bell Ranch Road, Case No: TE26-003, Applicant: Brian and Larna Hartnack, APN: 298-121-68

BACKGROUND
Brian and Larna Hartnack (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”) are requesting a second 12-month Time Extension to the Development Review Permit (DRP22-018) and Structure Development Permit (SDP22-020) Waiver originally approved on August 23, 2023, with the adoption of Resolution 2023-104. The project included the conversion of a 555 square-foot attached garage to living area, construction a 784 square-foot living area addition and a 668 square-foot two-car attached garage addition to a single-story single-family residence, with associated site improvements at 420 Bell Ranch Road (formerly 508 South Nardo Avenue).

The project was originally set to expire 24 months from the original approval date and on August 23, 2025. However, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-081 and approved a 12-month Time Extension (TE25-003) on July 2, 2025. The Applicant has applied for a second 12-month Time Extension (TE26-003) to extend the expiration to August 23, 2027.

The DRP/SDP expiration is considered to be on hold until the City Council is able to make a determination on the extension request.

This item is before the City Council to consider adoption of Resolution 2026-102 (Attachment 1) approving the Applicant’s request to formally extend the project approval as provided under the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) 17.72.110 for 12 months starting from the current expiration date of August 23, 2026.

DISCUSSION
On August 23, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-104 conditionally approving a DRP and SDP Waiver for the construction of a remodel and addition to a single-family residence. On July 2, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-081 conditionally approving a 12-month Time Extension. The Staff Reports and meeting videos for each past approval can be reviewed on the City’s website:

Item K.1
October 14, 2026
TE26-003 - 420 Bell Ranch Road - Hartnack Residence

Page 2 of 4 ends

https://www.cityofsolanabeach.org/en/city-council-meetings Access to the existing property was previously provided by a private access easement off South Nardo Avenue that did not meet the minimum standards for emergency access.

Instead of upgrading the existing non-standard access, the Applicant chose to wait until the construction of Bell Ranch Road was completed by the developer of the Ocean Ranch Subdivision and then construct driveway access to the subject property along Bell Ranch Road. At the time of the Applicant’s first extension request, Bell Ranch Road had been paved but was not open to public traffic. Since then, the construction of Bell Ranch Road has been substantially completed (except for minor final improvements) and includes new driveway access to the subject property in accordance with the new garage and driveway location approved with the DRP. The addressing of the subject property has also been updated from 508 South Nardo Avenue to 420-422 Bell Ranch Road for the existing primary residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

It is anticipated that the additional 12-month extension will be sufficient time for the Applicant to obtain the necessary construction permits for the DRP/SDP and commence construction.

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 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.1
October 14, 2026
TE26-003 - 420 Bell Ranch Road - Hartnack Residence

Page 3 of 4 ends

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.

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 2026-102 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.

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 2022 State of California CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

FISCAL IMPACT N/A

WORK PLAN N/A

OPTIONS
• Approve staff recommendation;
• Deny the request for a Time Extension; or
• Provide direction to Staff.

Item K.1
October 14, 2026
TE26-003 - 420 Bell Ranch Road - Hartnack Residence

Page 4 of 4 ends

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- 102,approving the request for a second 12-month Time Extension for approvals and entitlements in Case No. DRP22-020 and SDP22-018 and setting the expiration date as August 23, 2027.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2026-102
Item K.1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2026-102

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 AND

STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAIVER FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 420 BELL RANCH ROAD IN

SOLANA BEACH
APPLICANT: BRIAN AND LARNA HARTNACK
CASE NO.: TE26-003 TIME EXTENSION
APN: 298-121-68
WHEREAS, Brian and Larna Hartnack (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”) have submitted a request for a Time Extension of the approved Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SDP) Waiver pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning), of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-104 approving the project at the regularly scheduled August 23, 2023, City Council meeting; 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, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-081 approving a 12-month Time Extension at the regularly scheduled July 2, 2025 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the adjacent development of the Ocean Ranch Estates Subdivision completed construction of Bell Ranch Road in 2026, and the subject property, formerly 508 South Nardo Avenue, was assigned the new address of 420 Bell Ranch Road; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a request for a second 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 October 14, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the second 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 Item K.1
Resolution 2026-102
TE26-003 - 420 Bell Ranch Road – Hartnack Residence

Page 2 of 5 ends

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 2022 State of California CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 on August 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence presented at the Hearing, and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the Hearing.

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

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

2. That the request for a second 12-month Time Extension for a Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SDP) Waiver originally approved on August 23, 2023, with the adoption of Resolution 2023-104, to convert a 555 square-foot attached garage to living area, construct a 784 square-foot living area addition and a 668 square-foot two-car attached garage addition to a single-story single-family residence, and perform associated site improvements at 420 Bell Ranch Road 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 presented facts regarding the progress of the adjacent Ocean Ranch Subdivision development and completion of Bell Ranch Road, which are necessary in order for construction to commence on the subject project. Construction of Bell Ranch Road has been completed, and the Applicant now intends to proceed with the approved project for their property.

II. Circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control have intervened and prevented the Applicant from obtaining the issuance of a building Item K.1
Resolution 2026-102
TE26-003 - 420 Bell Ranch Road – Hartnack Residence

Page 3 of 5 ends

permit for the project prior to expiration of the 24-month period following the issuance of the original approval for the project; The Applicant has been limited in proceeding the with subject project, as designed, until Bell Ranch Road construction was completed by the Ocean Ranch Subdivision.

III. The application for the extension sets forth a reasonable and substantial factual basis for issuance of the time extension; The circumstances with the adjacent development sets forth a reasonable and substantial factual basis for issuance of the time extension.

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; Following the completion of Bell Ranch Road construction by the developer of the Ocean Ranch Subdivision, the Applicant is able to obtain necessary permits to commence construction of the approved project at 420 Bell Ranch Road.

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 the Applicant to obtain necessary 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 consistency of 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.

Item K.1
Resolution 2026-102
TE26-003 - 420 Bell Ranch Road – Hartnack Residence

Page 4 of 5 ends

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 2023-104.

2. 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.

3. EXPIRATION: The Development Review Permit and Structure Development Permit for the project will expire 12 months from the date of expiration of the first Time Extension, unless the Applicant has obtained building permits and have commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to completion.

4. 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. Generally the Resolution is effective Item K.1
Resolution 2026-102
TE26-003 - 420 Bell Ranch Road – Hartnack Residence

Page 5 of 5 ends

upon expiration of the tenth day following the date of adoption of this Resolution, unless the resolution is appealed or called for review as provided in the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 14th day of October, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk Item K.1
COUNCIL ACTION:
_______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # K.2.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2026
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department – Corey Andrews, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: 617 W. Circle Drive, Case No: DRP25-012, Applicant: Paul and Valerie Field; APN: 263-021-103

BACKGROUND
The property owners, Paul and Valerie Field (herein referred to as “Applicant”), are requesting City Council (Council) approval of a Development Review Permit (DRP) to for an interior remodel and 689 square foot addition to an existing single story, 2,452 square foot, single family residence, an attached 587 square foot attached two car garage and perform associated site improvements at 617 W. Circle Drive. The total grading proposed would include 360 cubic yards of cut to be exported offsite. The maximum building height of the proposed residence would be 16 feet in height and the highest point of the new roof would be at 84.29 MSL as measured from the existing grade of 68.29 MSL.

A DRP is required for grading in excess of 100 cubic yards and a proposed development in excess of 60 percent of the maximum allowable floor area. The proposed residence would not exceed 16 feet in height measured from the pre-existing grade; therefore, the project is not subject to View Assessment and the approval of a Structure Development Permit is not required.

The item before the Council is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Applicant’s request as contained in Resolution 2026-117 (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION
The 8,607 square-foot lot is located within the Medium Residential (MR) Zone and the Scaled Residential Overlay Zone (SROZ). The rectangular lot is located on the west side of Circle Drive and has 81 feet of frontage on Circle Drive along the eastern property line. The southern side property line is approximately 160 feet in length and the northern property line is 112 feet in length due to the bluff erosion along the western property line.

The topography of the lot is flat until you reach the top of the coastal bluff. The property is currently developed with an approximately 2,452 square foot single family residence with an attached garage. The western side of the existing residence is approximately 19 feet 9 inches from the top of the bluff at the closest point and approximately 32 feet 2 inches at Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 2 of 13 ends

the furthest point. There is an attached deck along the western side of the residence that is closer to the top of the bluff that the Applicant is proposing to maintain.

The Applicant is proposing to construct a 689 square foot addition and interior remodel of the existing, single- story, single family residence, and perform associated site improvements including grading and minimal landscaping. The project plans are provided in Attachment 2.

Table 1 (below) provides a comparison of the SBMC applicable zoning regulations with the Applicant’s proposed design.

Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of the project in the attached Resolution 2026- 117 for Council’s consideration based upon the information in this report. The applicable SBMC sections are provided in italicized text and conditions from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments are incorporated in the Resolution of Approval. The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a result of the Public Hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting. The following is a discussion of the findings for a DRP as each applies to the proposed project as well as references to recommended conditions of approval contained in Resolution 2026-117.

Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 3 of 13 ends

The following is a discussion of compliance with the policies of the LCP LUP as well as the findings for a DRP (as each applies to the proposed project) and a discussion of the development plans and recommended conditions as contained in the attached Resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

Policy 4.14: Existing, lawfully established structures that are located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (or lagoon) built prior to the adopted date of the LUP that do not conform to the provisions of the LCP shall be considered legal non-conforming structures. Such structures may be maintained and repaired, as long as the improvements do not increase the size or degree of non-conformity.

Additions and improvements to such structures that are not considered Bluff Top Redevelopment, as defined herein, may be permitted provided that such additions or improvements themselves comply with the current policies and standards of the LCP. Complete demolition and reconstruction or Bluff Top Redevelopment is not permitted unless the entire structure is brought into conformance with the policies and standards of the LCP.

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

Bluff Top Redevelopment shall apply to proposed development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (or lagoon) that consists of alterations including (1) additions to an existing structure, (2) exterior and/or interior renovations, (3) and/or demolition of an existing bluff home or other principal structure, or portions thereof, which results in:
(a) Alteration of 50% or more of major structural components including exterior walls, floor and roof structure, and foundation, or a 50% increase in floor area. Alterations are not additive between individual major structural components; however, changes to individual major structural components are cumulative over time from the date of certification of the LUP.

Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 4 of 13 ends

(b) Demolition, renovation or replacement of less than 50% of a major structural component where the proposed alteration would result in cumulative alterations exceeding 50% or more of a major structural component, taking into consideration previous alterations approved on or after the date of certification of the LUP; or an alteration that constitutes less than 50% increase in floor area where the proposed alteration would result in a cumulative addition of greater than 50% of the floor area taking into consideration previous additions approved on or after the date of certification of the LUP.

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

Policy 4.23: Where setbacks and other development standards could preclude the construction of a home the City may consider options including but not limited to reduction of the two-car onsite parking space requirement to a one car onsite parking requirement or construction within five feet of the public right of way front yard setback for all stories as long as adequate architectural relief (e.g., recessed windows or doorways or building articulation) is maintained as determined by the City. The City may also consider options including a caisson foundation with a minimum 40 foot bluff top setback to meet the stability requirement and avoid alteration of the natural landform along the bluffs. A condition of the permit for any such home shall expressly require waiver of any rights to new or additional buff retention devices which may exist and recording of said waiver on the title of the bluff property.

Policy 4.25: All new bluff property development shall be set back from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be in danger from erosion and that it will ensure stability for its projected 75-year economic life. To determine the GSL, applications for bluff property development must include a geotechnical report, from a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or a certified Engineering Geologist that establishes the Geologic Setback Line (GSL) for the proposed development. This setback line shall establish the location on the bluff top stability where it can be reasonably assured for the economic life of the development. Such assurance will Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 5 of 13 ends

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

Policy 4.26: With respect to bluff properties only, the City will require the removal or capping of any permanent irrigation system within 100 feet of the bluff edge in connection with issuance of discretionary permits for new development, redevelopment, or shoreline protection, or bluff erosion, unless the bluff property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, or the CCC if the project is appealed, that such irrigation has no material impact on bluff erosion (e.g., watering hanging plants over hardscape which drains to the street).

The existing residence was constructed prior to the City’s incorporation in 1979. The City’s LCP/LUP was certified in 2014. The existing residence is considered a legally existing nonconforming structure. Due to the lot’s location along the coastal bluff the LCP/LUP allows for construction within five feet of the public right of way, or a five-foot front yard setback for all stories as long as there is adequate architectural relief. In addition, the LCP/LUP requires a setback from the top of the bluff, or the geologic setback line (GSL).

Any structural additions are required to be landward of the GSL. The existing residence encroaches seaward of the GSL by approximately 20 feet at the furthest point.

In order to show that the proposed project is not considered “Bluff Top Redevelopment” the Applicant provided a table and project information on sheets 1-CCC1 and 2-CCC2 which illustrate that the proposed project would not modify more than 50% of the floor area, the foundation, the floor structure, the exterior walls, or the roof structure. Therefore, the existing nonconforming structure is allowed to remain.

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

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

Development Review Permit Compliance (SBMC Section 17.68.40):

A DRP is required because the aggregate grading quantity would exceed 100 cubic yards, and the total proposed floor area would exceed 60 percent of the maximum allowable for the property. The Council may approve, or conditionally approve, a DRP only if all of the Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 6 of 13 ends

findings listed below can be made. If the findings cannot be made, the Council shall deny the DRP. Resolution 2026-117 provides a full discussion of the findings.

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

2. The proposed development complies with the development review criteria.

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

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

DRP Finding #1
General Plan Consistency
The proposed project may be found consistent with the General Plan, which designates the property as Medium Density Residential and is intended for single-family residences developed at a maximum density of five to seven dwelling units per acre. The proposed development could be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods.

Specific Plans and Special Overlays
The property is located in the SROZ and subject to its specific development regulations for floor area ratio. The property is also located within the Coastal Zone. As a condition of project approval, the Applicant will be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver, or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.

Zoning Ordinance Consistency
SBMC Section 17.20.010(C) specifies that the MR Zone. This zone is intended to provide for residential development in areas characterized primarily by detached single-family dwellings on previously subdivided lots and two-family and multiple-family dwellings within newer, large lot, planned developments. SBMC Section 17.20.030 outlines property development regulations, which are analyzed below.

Minimum Yards/Setbacks:

Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 7 of 13 ends

In addition to the setbacks required by the LUP, the Minimum yard dimensions (setbacks) for the property are determined by the setback designator indicated on the City of Solana Beach official zoning map. The setback designator for the subject property is “d”, which requires a 25-foot front yard setback, 5-foot street and interior side yard setbacks, and a 25-foot rear yard setback. The proposed areas where square footage would be added to the garage and residence would be located entirely within the buildable area.

Maximum Floor Area Ratio:

The maximum allowable floor area calculation for 8,607 square-foot lot is as follows:

The 460 square foot attached garage would enter into the proposed 3,268 square feet single-story living area through a hall with a pantry on the left side and a new laundry room on the right side. At the end of this hall is the open concept living, dining, kitchen, and entry room with a powder room. The primary bedroom suite is proposed in the northwest corner of the residence and in the northeast corner of the residence three additional bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms are proposed. Along the entire length of the western side of the residence is a 1,098 square foot deck that is proposed to remain.

The SBMC parking regulations require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence. When required spaces are provided in a garage and are unobstructed, 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. The proposed 460 square foot garage would provide two unobstructed parking spaces, therefore, the project is afforded a 400 square-foot exemption from gross floor area calculation. With the exemption, the total gross floor area of the project would be 3,328 square feet, which is 128 square feet below the maximum allowable for the property.

Maximum Building Height:

The maximum building height for the MR Zone is 25 feet. The tallest point of the proposed residence would be 16 feet above the pre-existing grade. The highest point of the proposed roof would be at 84.29 MSL as measured from the existing grade of 68.29 MSL.

As designed, the proposed residence will not exceed 16 feet in height from the pre-existing grade. Therefore, the project is not subject to the requirements of SBMC Chapter 17.63 – View Assessment and the approval of an SDP. If the Applicant subsequently decides to modify the roofline outside of the existing building envelope in excess of 16 feet in height as measured from the pre-existing grade, a Structure Development Permit would be required.

Required Off-Street Parking:

Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 8 of 13 ends

A single-family residence requires two off-street parking spaces pursuant to SBMC Section

17.52.040 and the Off-Street Parking Design Manual (OSPDM). The Applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing attached garage which would provide two unobstructed 9-foot by 19-foot parking spaces.

Fences, Walls and Retaining Walls:

Within the front yard setback, the SBMC Section 17.20.040(O) allows fences and walls, or any combination thereof, to be no higher than 42 inches in height as measured from existing grade, except for an additional 2 feet that is at least 80% open to light. Fences, walls and retaining walls located within the rear and interior side yards are allowed to be up to 6 feet in height with an additional 2 feet that is 50% open to light and air. Fence and wall height is measured from the pre-existing grade.

Currently, the plans show that an existing 6-foot block wall with a gate is proposed along the southern property line adjacent to the house as well as an existing 6 foot block wall along the northern property line parallel to the residence that extends to the 5-foot front yard setback and then follows the eastern property line for approximately 22 linear feet and then jogs to the west toward the front entry approximately seven feet. The wall in this location is proposed to be relocated in order to provide room for the square footage addition on this side of the existing residence. The proposed wall would be parallel with the property line for 10 linear feet and then jog to the west again approximately five feet and would ultimately end at the exterior wall of the garage.

The walls as shown on the plans comply with the maximum fence and wall height regulations. If the Applicant decides to modify or add any additional fences or walls they would be required to comply with the height limitations listed above.

Water Efficient Landscape:

The project is not subject to the current Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) of SBMC Chapter 17.56. A Landscape Documentation Package is required for new development projects with an aggregate landscape equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building permit, plan check, or development review. The Applicant is only proposing to modify 292 square feet of landscape area. The landscape area that is proposed to be modified is shown on the site plan on sheet A-0 of the plans in attachment

2. If, during construction, the Applicant modifies more than 500 square feet of landscape area, a stop work notice will be issued until a DRP modification for a Water Efficient Landscape Plan is brought before the city council and receives approval.

DRP Finding #2
The development review criteria topics referenced in DRP Finding #2 are listed below with further discussion as to how they relate to the proposed Project:

1. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses
Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 9 of 13 ends

2. Building and Structure Placement

3. Landscaping

4. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking, and Storage Areas

5. Grading

6. Lighting

7. Usable Open Space
Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses:

The property and the surrounding neighborhood are located in the MR Zone and are developed with one-and two-story single-family residences.

Neighborhood Comparison:

Staff compared the proposed project to 17 nearby properties located on both sides of w.

Circle Drive, as shown on the map.

The properties evaluated in this comparison are also located in the MR Zone and SROZ.

The surrounding properties are developed with single-family homes ranging in size from 1,509 square feet to 6,173 square feet. The existing square footage information is obtained through the County Assessor records. It should be noted that the County Assessor does not include garages, covered patios or courtyards, accessory buildings, or unfinished basements in the total square footage. Accordingly, the building area of the proposed project has been calculated for comparison purposes by deleting the clear story area, courtyard area, and the garage:

Project Gross Building Area: 3,728 ft2
Delete Attached Garage:  460 ft2
Project Area for Comparison to Assessor’s Data: 3,368 ft2 Table 2, below, is based upon the County Assessor’s data and SanGIS data. It contains neighboring lot sizes, the square footage of existing development and the maximum allowable square footage for potential development on each lot.

Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 10 of 13 ends

Building and Structure Placement:

The residence would be located within the buildable area with existing encroachments that are considered legally existing nonconforming that would remain without modification including the existing deck along the western side of the residence and the western most portion of the residence which are seaward of the minimum rear yard setback and the GSL line. Additional site improvements including grading, landscaping, and hardscape are proposed in front of the proposed additions on the east side of the residence. The residence would not exceed 16 feet in height and the proposed floor area would be below the maximum allowable floor area by 128 square feet. The proposed residence could be found to be designed to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.

Landscape:

The proposed project is not subject to the water efficient landscape ordinance.

Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking, and Storage Areas:

The design includes converting 127 square feet of existing garage area into living area and constructing an addition to the front of the garage for a total garage and storage area of 460 square feet. The existing driveway would remain in the southeast corner of the lot and Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 11 of 13 ends

an access path from the driveway through the proposed block wall would provide pedestrian access to the entry at the center of the residence. Two parking spaces that are 9 feet wide by 19 feet in length and free of obstruction would be provided within the garage.

Grading:

The Applicant is proposing approximately 360 cubic yards of cut, to be exported offsite.

Grading is required in order to provide a flat building pad for the proposed addition on the east side of the existing residence and garage as well as site improvements on the lot in front of the residence including the new section of the block wall and entry landscape.

Lighting:

Usable Open Space:

The project consists of the construction of a remodel and square footage addition to an existing single-family residence with an attached garage on a residential lot. Usable open space and recreational facilities are neither proposed nor required according to SBMC Section 17.20.040. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to pay the City’s Park Impact Fee.

Property Frontage and Public Right-of-Way Improvements:

The property frontage is currently improved with a regional standard 6-inch high curb and gutter. If approved, the applicant will be required to remove the existing landscaping and install a new pedestrian sidewalk with a standard driveway approach in the property frontage.

Public Hearing Notice:

Notice of the City Council Public Hearing for the project was published in the Union Tribune more than 10 days prior to the public hearing. The same public notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project site on October 2, 2026. Staff has not received correspondence from neighbors regarding the proposed project.

In conclusion, the proposed project, as conditioned, could be found to be consistent with the Zoning regulations and the General Plan. Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of the project in the attached Resolution 2026-117 for Council’s consideration based upon the information in this report. Conditions from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments are incorporated in the Resolution of Approval.

Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 12 of 13 ends

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. Examples of this exemption include one single-family residence or second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three-single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.

FISCAL IMPACT N/A

WORK PLAN N/A

OPTIONS
∙ Approve Staff recommendation adopting the attached Resolution 2026-117. ∙ Approve Staff recommendation subject to additional specific conditions necessary for the City Council to make all required findings for the approval of a DRP. ∙ Deny the project if all required findings for the DRP cannot be made.

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

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

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2026-117 conditionally approving a DRP to construct a square foot addition and interior remodel at 617 W. Circle drive, Solana Beach. ______________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2026-117

2. Project Plans

3. GeoSoils, Inc. Report
Item K.2
October 14, 2026
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 13 of 13 ends

4. Letter from UES
Item K.2
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2026-117

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR AN

INTERIOR REMODEL AND SQUARE FOOTAGE

ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 617 W.

CIRCLE DRIVE, SOLANA BEACH, CA.

APPLICANT: Paul and Valerie Field
APPLICATION: DRP25-012
APN: 263-021-103
WHEREAS, Paul and Valerie Field (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”), have submitted an application for a Development Review Permit (DRP) pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 17.72.030; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing on October 14, 2026, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the proposed application; and WHEREAS, the City Council found the application request exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence presented at the Hearing, and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the Hearing.

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

I. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

II. That the request for a DRP for an interior remodel and 689 square foot addition to an existing single story, 2,452 square foot, single family residence, with an attached 587 square foot attached two car garage and perform associated site improvements at 617 W. Circle Drive is conditionally approved based upon the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions:

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

Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 2 of 14 ends

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

General Plan Consistency: The proposed project may be found consistent with the General Plan, which designates the property as Medium Density Residential and is intended for single-family residences developed at a maximum density of five to seven dwelling units per acre.

The proposed development could be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods.

Coastal Zone:

The City’s LUP applies citywide as the entire City is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, in addition to compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan, the project’s conformance with the certified LUP is also evaluated.

The LUP contains specific policies, provisions and regulations related to properties located on the coastal bluff including those related to bluff edge setbacks, existing legal non-conforming structures and the removal of permanent irrigation systems located within 100 feet of the bluff edge. The key relevant policies from the City’s Certified LUP which apply to this project are 4.14, 4.17, 4.23, 4.25, and 4.26.

In order to show that the proposed project is not considered “Bluff Top Redevelopment” the Applicant provided a table and project information on the project plans which illustrate that the proposed project would not modify more than 50% of the floor area, the foundation, the floor structure, the exterior walls, or the roof structure. Therefore, the existing nonconforming structure is allowed to remain.

The geotechnical analysis prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. provided by the Applicant was reviewed by the City’s third-party geotechnical engineering consultant Colm Kenny of Universal Engineering Sciences Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 3 of 14 ends

(UES) they found that the project was in compliance with the policies of the LCP/LUP.

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

An additional condition of project approval will require that the Applicant obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver, or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.

Zoning Ordinance Consistency: SBMC Section 17.20.010(C) specifies that the MR Zone. This zone is intended to provide for residential development in areas characterized primarily by detached single-family dwellings on previously subdivided lots and two-family and multiplefamily dwellings within newer, large lot, planned developments. SBMC Section 17.20.030 outlines property development regulations, which are analyzed below.

Minimum Yards/Setbacks:

The setback designator for the subject property is “d”, which requires a 25-foot front yard setback, 5-foot street and interior side yard setbacks, and a 25-foot rear yard setback. The proposed areas where square footage would be added to the garage and residence would be located entirely within the buildable area.

Maximum Floor Area Ratio:

The maximum allowable floor area calculation for the 8,607 square foot lot is as follows:

0.50 for first 6,000 sf

0.175 for 6,000 to 15,000 sf
3,000 sf
456 sf
Maximum Allowable Floor Area: 3,456 sf
The 460 square foot attached garage would enter into the proposed 3,268 square feet single-story living area through a hall with a pantry on the left side and a new laundry room on the right side. At the end of this hall is the open concept living, dining, kitchen, and entry room with a powder room. The primary bedroom suite is proposed in the northwest corner of the residence and in the northeast corner of the residence three additional bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms are proposed. Along Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 4 of 14 ends

the entire length of the western side of the residence is a 1,098 square foot deck that is proposed to remain.

The SBMC parking regulations require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence. When required spaces are provided in a garage and are unobstructed, 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. The proposed 460 square foot garage would provide two unobstructed parking spaces, therefore, the project is afforded a 400 square-foot exemption from gross floor area calculation. With the exemption, the total gross floor area of the project would be 3,350 square feet, which is 128 square feet below the maximum allowable for the property.

Maximum Building Height:

Required Off-Street Parking:

A single-family residence requires two off-street parking spaces pursuant to SBMC Section 17.52.040 and the Off-Street Parking Design Manual (OSPDM). The Applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing attached garage which would provide two unobstructed 9-foot by 19-foot parking spaces.

Fences, Walls and Retaining Walls:

Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 5 of 14 ends

The wall in this location is proposed to be relocated in order to provide room for the square footage addition on this side of the existing residence. The proposed wall would be parallel with the property line for 10 linear feet and then jog to the west again approximately five feet and would ultimately end at the exterior wall of the garage.

Landscape:

The project is not subject to the current Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) of SBMC Chapter 17.56. A Landscape
Documentation Package is required for new development projects with an aggregate landscape equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building permit, plan check, or development review. The Applicant is only proposing to modify 292 square feet of landscape area.

The landscape area that is proposed to be modified is shown on the site plan on sheet A-0 of the plans in attachment 2. If, during construction, the Applicant modifies more than 500 square feet of landscape area, a stop work notice will be issued until a DRP modification for a Water Efficient Landscape Plan is brought before the city council and receives approval.

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

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

The property and the surrounding neighborhood are located in the MR Zone and are developed with one-and two-story singlefamily residences. The project, as designed, could be found Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 6 of 14 ends

consistent with the permitted uses for the MR Zone as described in SBMC Sections 17.20.010 and 17.12.020. The maximum
proposed floor area would be 102 square feet below the
maximum allowable for the property.
b. Building and Structure Placement: Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhances their intended use.

c. Landscaping: The removal of significant native vegetation shall be minimized. Replacement vegetation and landscaping shall be compatible with the vegetation of the surrounding area. Trees and other large plantings shall not obstruct significant views when installed or at maturity.

The proposed project is not subject to the water efficient landscape ordinance.
d. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking and Storage Areas: Any development involving more than one building or structure shall provide common access roads and pedestrian walkways.

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

The design includes converting 127 square feet of garage area into living area and constructing a square footage addition to the front of the garage for a total garage and storage area of 460 square feet. The existing driveway would remain in the
southeast corner of the lot and an access path from the driveway through the proposed block wall would provide pedestrian access to the entry at the center of the residence. Two parking Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 7 of 14 ends

spaces that are 9 feet wide by 19 feet in length and free of obstruction would be provided within the garage.
e. Grading: To the extent feasible, natural topography and scenic features of the site shall be retained and incorporated into the proposed development. Any grading or earth-moving operations in connection with the proposed development shall be planned and executed so as to blend with the existing terrain both on and adjacent to the site. Existing exposed or disturbed slopes shall be landscaped with native or naturalized non-native vegetation and existing erosion problems shall be corrected.

The Applicant is proposing approximately 360 cubic yards of cut, to be exported offsite. Grading is required in order to provide a flat building pad for the proposed addition on the east side of the existing residence and garage as well as site improvements on the lot in front of the residence including the new section of the block wall and entry landscape.
f. Lighting: Light fixtures for walkways, parking areas, driveways, and other facilities shall be provided in sufficient number and at proper locations to assure safe and convenient nighttime use.

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

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

The project consists of the construction of a remodel and square footage addition to an existing single-family residence with an attached garage on a residential lot. Usable open space and recreational facilities are neither proposed nor required according to SBMC Section 17.20.040. As a condition of
approval, the Applicant will be required to pay the City’s Park Impact Fee.

III. All required permits and approvals including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 8 of 14 ends

have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.

All required permits are being processed concurrently with the Development Review Permit.

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

The Applicant is required to obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of Building or Grading Permits.

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

A. Community Development Department Conditions:

I. The Applicant shall pay required Fire Mitigation, Park Development, Public Use Facilities, and Public Facilities Impact Fees.

II. Building Permit plans must be in substantial conformance with the architectural plans presented to the City Council on October 14, 2026, and located in the project file with a submittal date of October 6, 2026.

III. Any proposed onsite fences, walls and retaining walls and any proposed railing located on top, or any combination thereof, shall comply with applicable regulations of SBMC Section 17.20.040 and

17.60.070 (Fences and Walls).

IV. Prior to the issuance of Building and Grading Permits, the Applicant shall obtain required California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption as determined necessary by the CCC.

V. Prior to the final inspection, the Applicant shall remove or cap off any/all onsite permanent irrigation systems located within 100 feet of the bluff edge.

VI. Prior to the framing inspection, a height certification signed by a licensed land surveyor will be required to certify that that the maximum building height of the residence is 16 feet as measured above the existing grade of 68.29 MSL and the highest point of the roof would be 84.29 MSL as measured from the existing grade.

Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 9 of 14 ends

VII. If during construction, the Applicant modifies more than 292 square feet of the existing landscape area, a stop work notice will be issued until the Applicant receives approval of a water efficient landscape plan at a DRP modification public hearing.

VIII. Native or drought tolerant and non-invasive plant materials and water conserving irrigation systems shall be incorporated into any proposed landscaping and compatible with the surrounding area to the extent feasible.

IX. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall be in conformance with the Citywide lighting regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (SBMC 17.60.060).

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

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

XI. The Applicant shall connect to temporary electrical service as soon as feasible to the satisfaction of the City. The use of gas-powered generator(s) during construction activity is discouraged and shall be limited only to selective use at the discretion of the City.

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

B. Fire Department Conditions:

I. This project shall be subject to the California Building Standards Code effective at the time an application for building permit is submitted.

II. The increased square footage of the building results in an increased minimum fire flow of 1,750 gpm in accordance with CFC Appendix B, Section B105. You may either obtain a letter from Santa Fe Irrigation District stating the nearest fire hydrant is capable of supplying the minimum required fire flow of 1,750 gallons per minute, with a flow duration of 2 hours, and a residual pressure of 20 pounds per square Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 10 of 14 ends

inch, or you may install an automatic sprinkler system complying with CFC Section 903.3.1.3.

III. OBSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION: All
roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width during construction and maintained free and clear, including the parking of vehicles per the 2025 California Fire Code Chapter 5 Section 503.4 and 503.2.1.

IV. ADDRESS NUMBERS: STREET NUMBERS: Approved numbers
and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property from either direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast with their background, and shall meet the following minimum standards as to size: 4” high with a ½” inch stroke width for residential buildings, 8” high with a ½” stroke for commercial and multi-family residential buildings, 12” high with a 1” stroke for industrial buildings. Additional numbers shall be required where deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, building corners, and entrances to commercial centers per the 2025 California Fire Code Chapter 5 Section 505.1.

V. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM-ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY
DWELLINGS: Structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed and installed. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted as Deferred Submittal and approved by the Solana Beach Fire Department prior to installation per the Solana Beach Municipal Code Title 15 Building and Construction Chapter 15.32 Fire Code Section 15.32.230 Section 903.2 (NEW) or Section 903.2.01 (ADDITIONS, REMODELS) or Section 903.2.02 (NEW COMMERCIAL).

VI. CLASS “A” ROOF: All structures shall be provided with a Class “A” Roof covering to the satisfaction of the Solana Beach Fire Department and per the 2025 California Building Code Chapter 15 Section 150.

VII. VENTS: All residential buildings, including new construction, remodels, alterations, and re-roofs, shall be equipped with vents that are approved as wildfire-flame and ember-resistant in accordance with the Solana Beach Municipal Code Title 15 Building and Construction Chapter 15.32 Fire Code Section 15.32.351 and the 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code Section 504.10.

VIII. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATIONS (Solar Panels): Solar Photovoltaic systems shall be installed per Solana Beach Fire Department requirements and per the 2025 California Fire Code Chapter 12 Section 1205.

C. Engineering Department Conditions:

Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 11 of 14 ends

I. The Applicants shall obtain an Encroachment Permit in accordance with SBMC Section 11.20 for all work being done in the public right-ofway, including but not limited to the below frontage improvements. The frontage improvements shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the occupancy of the proposed project:
a. Construction of a minimum 4-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk per SDRSD G-07
b. Construction of the concrete driveway approach per SDRSD G14D II. All construction demolition materials shall be recycled according to the City' s Construction and Demolition recycling program and an approved Waste Management Plan shall be submitted.

III. Construction fencing shall be located on the subject property unless the Applicants have obtained an Encroachment Permit in accordance with chapter 11.20 of the SBMC which allows otherwise.

IV. Grading
a. The Applicants shall obtain a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

On-site grading design and construction shall be in accordance with Chapter 15. 40 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code. b. The Applicants shall obtain a Soils Report prepared by a Registered Soils Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

All necessary measures shall be taken and implemented to assure slope stability, erosion control and soil integrity. The grading plan shall incorporate all recommendations contained in the soils report.
c. The Applicants shall provide a Drainage Report prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. This report shall address the design for detention basin and corresponding outflow system to ensure the rate of runoff for the proposed development is at or below that of pre-existing condition. All recommendations of this report shall be incorporated into the Preliminary Grading Plan. A detention basin easement(s) shall be recorded for maintenance of the detention basins by the property owner(s) in perpetuity, prior to the release of the Grading Bond and Security Deposit. d. The Applicants shall show all retaining walls and drainage structures. Retaining walls shown on the grading plan shall conform to the San Diego Regional Standards or be designed Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 12 of 14 ends

by a licensed civil engineer. Engineering calculations for all designed walls with a surcharge and nonstandard walls shall be submitted at grading plan check. Retaining walls may not exceed the allowable height within the property line setback as determined by the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code.

Contact the Community Development department for further information.
e. The Applicants are responsible to protect the adjacent properties during construction. If any grading, construction activity, access or potential construction- related impacts are anticipated beyond the property lines, as determined by the City Engineer, the Applicants shall obtain a letter of permission from the adjoining property owners. All required letters of permission shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
f. Cut and fill slopes shall be set back from site boundaries and building in accordance with SBMC Section 15.40.140 and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. The Applicants shall pay a grading plan check fee in accordance with the current Engineering Fee Schedule at initial grading plan submittal. Inspection fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the grading permit.
h. The Applicants shall obtain and submit grading security in a form prescribed by the City Engineer.
i. The Applicants shall obtain haul permit for import/export of soil.

The Applicants shall transport all excavated material to a legal disposal site.
j. The Applicants shall submit certification from the Engineer of Record and the Soils Engineer that all private drainage facilities and finished grades are functioning and are installed in accordance with the approved plans. This shall be accomplished by the Engineer of Record incorporating as- built conditions on the Mylar grading plans and obtaining signatures of the Engineer of Record and the Soils Engineer certifying the as- built conditions.
k. An Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan shall be prepared by the Applicant. Best management practices shall be developed and implemented to manage storm water and
nonstorm water discharges from the site at all times during excavation and grading activities. Erosion prevention shall be emphasized as the most important measure for keeping
Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 13 of 14 ends

sediment on site during excavation, grading and other
construction related activities. Sediment controls shall be used as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on site.
l. The Applicants shall show all proposed onsite private drainage facilities intended to discharge water runoff. Elements of this design shall include a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities and identify any easements or structures required to properly convey the drainage. The construction of drainage structures shall comply with the standards set forth by the San Diego Regional Standard
Drawings.
m. Post Construction Best Management Practices meeting City and RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-001, requirements shall be
implemented in the drainage design.
n. No increased cross lot drainage shall be allowed.
o. Prior to the foundation inspection, the Applicants shall submit a building pad certification statement from a soils engineer and an engineer or land surveyor licensed in Land Surveying per SBMC

15. 40. 230E.

D. City Council Conditions:

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

II. EXPIRATION
The Development Review Permit for the project will expire 24 months from the date of this Resolution, unless the Applicant has obtained building permits and has commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to completion. An extension of the application may be granted by the City Council according to SBMC 17.72.110.

III. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, Item K.2
Resolution 2026-117
DRP25-012 - 617 W. Circle Dr. – Field Residence

Page 14 of 14 ends

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. Generally the resolution is effective upon expiration of the tenth day following the date of adoption of this resolution, unless the resolution is appealed or called for review as provided in the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 14th day of October 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney MEGAN BAVIN, City Clerk Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2
Item K.2

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL AND COASTAL BLUFF

STABILITY/RETREAT EVALUATIONS

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
617 W. CIRCLE DRIVE
SOLANA BEACH, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92075
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 263-121-03-00
FOR

PAUL AND VALERIE FIELD
617 W. CIRCLE DRIVE
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
W.O. 7826-A1-SC JUNE 26, 2025
City of Solana Beach Planning Department

RECEIVED
09/03/2025 aogandzhanyan
Attachment # 3
Item K.2
*HRWHFKQLFDOÂ*HRORJLFÂ&RDVWDOÂ(QYLURQPHQWDO
1817 $VWRQ $YH 6XLWH 1 &DUOVEDG &$
8
7(/

7
8-1 - )$;

1-
1
ZZZJHRVRLOVLQFFRP
June 26, 2025
W.O. 7826-A1-SC
Paul and Valerie Field
617 W. Circle Drive
Solana Beach, California 92075
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical and Coastal Bluff Stability/Retreat Evaluations, Proposed Additional Residential Development, 617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California 92075, APN 263-121-03-00 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Field:

In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed preliminary geotechnical and coastal bluff stability/retreat evaluations of the subject property.

The purpose of our studies was to evaluate the onsite geologic and geomorphic conditions, relative to the proposed additional residential development thereon, in order to provide geotechnical recommendations regarding the development setback from the coastal bluff edge and for site earthwork, and the design of foundations, retaining walls, flatwork, and other improvements possibly applicable to the project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
%DVHG RQ RXU UHYLHZ RIWKH DYDLODEOH GDWD
VHH$SSHQGL[$
ÞHOG H[SORUDWLRQ ODERUDWRU\
testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed additional residential development at the subject property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. 7KHPRVWVLJQLÞFDQWHOHPHQWVRIWKLVVWXG\ are summarized below:
x Based on the results of the bluff retreat and slope stability analyses, the stability of the proposed building additions should be assured over their 75-year design life provided their location conforms to the minimum 40-foot Geologic Setback from the current coastal bluff edge, as prescribed in Policy 4.25 of the City of Solana Beach’s “Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan” (City of Solana Beach [City], 2018 [see Appendix “A”).
x Based on the available subsurface data, soils considered unsuitable for supporting the proposed settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., building additions, underground utilities, hardscape, etc.) extend to depths ranging between approximately 4 and 4¾ feet below the existing grades.

Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page Two
x On a preliminary basis, the onsite soils are anticipated to be very low in expansion potential. Thus, mitigation is not considered necessary to protect the foundations of the proposed building additions from damaging shrink/swell deformations.

The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our RIÞFH
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.

Reviewed by:

John P. Franklin Stephen J. Coover
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2057 Ryan B. Boehmer
Staff Geologist
RBB/JPF/SJC/ef
Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF via email)
Item K.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................................................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 1 Site Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 Proposed Development ..................................................................................................................... 3 FIELD EXPLORATION .................................................................................................................................... 3 PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTINGS .......................................................................... 3 Regional Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................. 4 GEOLOGIC UNITS ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Quaternary Beach Deposits (Map Symbol - Qb) ................................................................................ 5 $UWLÞFLDO)LOO- Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu) .............................................................................. 6 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop) ....................................................................... 6 Tertiary-age Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol - Tt) .............................................................................. 7 Tertiary-age Delmar Formation (Map Symbol Td) ............................................................................... 7 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................. 7 ONSITE SOILS AND STORM WATER INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY ................................................................ 8 GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................................... 9 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATIONS ................................................................................... 9 General ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Mass Wasting/Landslide Susceptibility ............................................................................................... 9 Faulting and Regional Seismicity ...................................................................................................... 10 Local Faulting ..................................................................................................................... 11 Surface Rupture ................................................................................................................. 11 Seismicity ........................................................................................................................... 11 Seismic Shaking Parameters ........................................................................................................... 12 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS ............................................................................................................... 14 Liquefaction..................................................................................................................................... 14 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 14 6HLVPLF'HQVLÞFDWLRQ ...................................................................................................................... 14 Tsunami ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Other Geologic/Secondary Seismic Hazards ................................................................................... 15 COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 15 LONG-TERM SEA LEVEL CHANGE ............................................................................................................. 16 FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE ............................................................................................................................ 20 Sea-Level Projection Tool ................................................................................................................ 22 FUTURE BLUFF RETREAT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 34 6LPSOLÞHG1XPHULFDO0RGHORI6KRUHOLQH(YROXWLRQ ........................................................................... 34 Model Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 36 Coastal Bluff Lithology ..................................................................................................................... 36 Presence of a Protective Beach and Shore Platform ........................................................................ 36 LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................................................................. 38 General ........................................................................................................................................... 38 &ODVVLÞFDWLRQ ................................................................................................................................... 38 Field Moisture Content and Density ................................................................................................. 38 Expansion Potential ......................................................................................................................... 39 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content ................................................................... 39 Direct Shear Tests ........................................................................................................................... 39 Soil pH, Saturated Resistivity, Soluble Sulfates and Soluble Chlorides .............................................. 40 Corrosion Summary ........................................................................................................... 40 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 41 Summary of Slope Stability Analyses ............................................................................................... 42 GEOLOGIC SETBACK ................................................................................................................................. 42 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 43 Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field Table of Contents
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page ii
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 46 General ........................................................................................................................................... 46 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 46 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Earth Materials ......................................... 46 Overexcavation ............................................................................................................................... 47 Slot Grading/Slot Excavations .......................................................................................................... 47 Perimeter Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 48 Compacted Fill Placement ............................................................................................................... 48 Import Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 48 Graded Slope Construction ............................................................................................................. 48 Temporary Slopes............................................................................................................................ 49 Excavation Observation and Monitoring (All Excavations) ................................................................ 49 Observation ....................................................................................................................... 50 Earthwork Balancing (Shrinkage/Bulking) ........................................................................... 50 ALTERNATIVE TO REMEDIAL GRADING FOR BUILDING ADDITION SUPPORT ......................................... 51 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS – PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FOUNDATIONS AND CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS ..................................................................................................... 51 General ........................................................................................................................................... 51 Shallow Foundation Design .............................................................................................................. 52 Foundation Settlement .................................................................................................................... 53 Shallow Foundation and Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floor Construction Recommendations ................ 53 Foundation Underpinning ................................................................................................................ 55 SOIL MOISTURE TRANSMISSION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 55 RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................................. 58 General ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Conventional Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................... 58 Preliminary Retaining Wall Foundation Design ..................................................................... 59 %DFNÞOO6RLO'HQVLWLHVIRU5HWDLQLQJ:DOO'HVLJQ ............................................................................... 59 Restrained Walls ................................................................................................................. 59 Cantilevered Walls .............................................................................................................. 59 Seismic Surcharge .......................................................................................................................... 60 5HWDLQLQJ:DOO%DFNÞOODQG'UDLQDJH ................................................................................................ 61 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ............................................................................................. 65 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN .................................................. 66 AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 66 Shoring of Excavations .................................................................................................................... 66 Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring Design .................................................................... 66 Shoring Construction Recommendations ......................................................................................... 68 Monitoring of Shoring ...................................................................................................................... 69 Monitoring of Structures .................................................................................................................. 71 Deeper Excavations Adjacent to Shoring Systems ........................................................................... 71 FLATWORK AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................ 72 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE MIX DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 74 PERMANENT POST-CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER BEST..................................................................... 74 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................................................................................ 74 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................... 75 Planting and Irrigation ...................................................................................................................... 75 Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 76 Landscape Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 76 Tile Flooring ..................................................................................................................................... 77 Subsurface and Surface Water ........................................................................................................ 77 Foundation Trench Excavation ......................................................................................................... 77 Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field Table of Contents
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page iii
Trenching ........................................................................................................................................ 77 8WLOLW\7UHQFK%DFNÞOO ....................................................................................................................... 77 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ................................................................................... 78 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS ................................................................................... 79 PLAN REVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 80 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 80

FIGURES:

Figure 1 - Site Location Map.............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Fault Activity Map of Southern California ......................................................................... 11 Figure 3 - Schematic Diagrams of Global Temperature Variations Since the Pleistocene ................. 17 Figure 4 - Sea Level Rise Over the Last 20,000 Years ..................................................................... 19 Figure 5 - Geologic Timescale: Concentrations of CO2 and Temperature Fluctuations..................... 20 Figure 6 – Relative Sea Level Trend at the La Jolla Tide Gauge ....................................................... 26 Figure 7 - Future SLR Projections for the La Jolla Tide Gauge Station ............................................. 29 Figure 8 – Sea Level Rise at the La Jolla Tide Gauge (Station 9410230) for Different Sea Level Scenarios .......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 9 – 1932 Bluff Edge Location ................................................................................................ 33 Figure 10 - Sea Level Rise (meters) and Cliff Retreat (meters) ......................................................... 35 Figure 11 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring Systems ............................................... 67 Detail 1 - Retaining Wall Detail - Alternative A .................................................................................. 62 Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Detail - Alternative B .................................................................................. 63 Detail 3 - Retaining Wall Detail - Alternative C .................................................................................. 64 ATTACHMENTS:

Appendix A - References .................................................................................................. Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs ................................................................................................. Rear of Text Appendix C - Seismicity Data ........................................................................................... Rear of Text Appendix D - Laboratory Data .......................................................................................... Rear of Text Appendix E - Slope Stability Analyses ............................................................................... Rear of Text Appendix F - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ................................................. Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map ................................................................................ Rear of Text in Folder Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Section X-X’ ................................................................. Rear of Text in Folder Item K.2

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL AND

COASTAL BLUFF STABILITY/RETREAT EVALUATIONS
617 W. CIRCLE DRIVE
SOLANA BEACH, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92075
APN 263-121-03-00

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
x Reviews of in-house geologic literature, regional geologic maps, and aerial photographs of the site and near vicinity, including some existing geotechnical reports prepared for nearby coastal bluff properties (see Appendix A). x /RFDWLQJ WKH FRDVWDO EOXII HGJH LQ WKH ÞHOG per City of Solana Beach (City) and California Coastal Commission (CCC) guidelines.
x Geologic site reconnaissance, mapping, and subsurface exploration with one (1) hollow-stem auger boring and two (2) supplemental hand-auger borings to evaluate the near-surface soil and geologic conditions, and to sample the onsite soils (see Appendix B).
x General areal geologic hazards and seismicity evaluations (see Appendix C). x Appropriate laboratory testing of relatively undisturbed and representative bulk soil samples retrieved from the borings (see Appendix D).
x Engineering and geologic analyses of the collected data, including evaluations of coastal bluff stability, and historical and future coastal bluff retreat at the subject property. (Appendix E).
x Preparation of this summary report and accompaniments.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Description
The subject property consists of an irregularly-shaped, developed land parcel located at 617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California 92075 (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The latitude and longitude of the approximate centroid of the property are 32.999667° North, -117.2774876° West. The property is situated above an approximately 60-foot KLJKFRDVWDOEOXIIVORSHGHVFHQGLQJWRZDUGWKH3DFLÞF2FHDQ The property is bounded by W. Circle Drive to the northeast, by the aforementioned coastal bluff DQG WKH 3DFLÞF 2FHDQ to the southwest, and by existing residential development to the remaining quadrants. Topographically, the property is mostly flat-lying to locally steeply sloping along its southwestern margin. According to the topographic survey prepared by Item K.2
W.O.

SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
7826-A1-SC
Base Map: Google Maps, Copyright 2020 Google, Map Data Copyright 2020 Google This map is copyrighted by Google 2020. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for
personal use or resale, without permission. All rights
reserved.

NOT TO SCALE
Base Map: TOPO!® ©2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S. Encinitas Quadrangle & U.S.G.S. Del Mar Quadrangle California -- San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1996, current, 2000.

SITE
SITE
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 3
J.P. Engineering, Inc. ([JPE], 2020), site elevations vary between approximately 43 and 70 feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), for an overall relief of 27 feet.

JPE (2020) shows slope gradients within the property on the order of ¼:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) or flatter, and bluff slope gradients ranging between roughly near-vertical and 1.7:1 (h:v) to the southwest of the parcel. Surface drainage within the developed portion of the property is generally by sheet-flow runoff directed toward the northeast and southwest.

Existing site improvements include a one-story residential structure, a concrete driveway, concrete and flagstone walkways, two wooden decks, a wooden trellis, and rock-cladded walls with a maximum height of approximately 3½ feet. Landscaping includes succulents, shrubbery, and small trees.

Proposed Development
Based on the site plan prepared by Bokal and Sneed Architects (B&A, 2022), GSI understands that the proposed development at the site consists of a remodel of the existing residential structure with new building additions along its northeastern side. Building loads are currently unknown but assumed to be typical of light residential construction.

FIELD EXPLORATION
GSI mapped the coastal bluff edge location and the coastal bluff face on February 27, and March 5, 2025. Subsurface exploration was performed by GSI on March 5, 2025.

The subsurface was explored with one hollow-stem auger boring and two shallow hand-auger borings. The attached “Geotechnical Map” (Plate 1) shows the approximate locations of the coastal bluff edge and borings, and the onsite and adjacent coastal bluff geology in plan view. Plate 1 uses JPE (2020) as a base. “Geologic Cross-Section X-X’” (Plate 2) presents a representation of the near-surface, onsite and adjacent coastal bluff geology LQSURÞOHYLHZ. The logs of the borings are included in Appendix B.

PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTINGS
Physiographic Setting
The site is located in the coastal plain physiographic section of San Diego County. The coastal plain section is characterized by pronounced marine wave-cut terraces intermittently GLVVHFWHGE\VWUHDPFKDQQHOVWKDWFRQYH\ZDWHUIURPWKHHDVWHUQKLJKODQGVWRWKH3DFLÞF Ocean.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 4
Regional Geologic Setting
San Diego County lies within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern &DOLIRUQLD7KLVSURYLQFHLVW\SLÞHGE\QRUWKZHVW-trending, elongated mountain ranges and valleys (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province extends from the base of the east-west aligned Santa Monica - San Gabriel Mountains, and continues south into Baja California, Mexico. The mountain ranges within this province are underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic (granitic) rocks.

As indicated by Kennedy and Tan (2008), a relatively thick (>1,000 meters) succession of Upper Cretaceous-, Tertiary-, and Quaternary-age sediments unconformably overlie basement rocks in southwestern San Diego County. The Upper Cretaceous units are composed of marine turbidites and continental fan deposits assigned to the Rosario Group.

After the deposition of the Rosario Group, the coastal margin was uplifted and eroded until the middle Eocene. Subsequently, several major transgressive-regressive cycles led to the deposition of nine (9) partially intertonguing middle and upper Eocene sequences. Following deposition of the Eocene sediments, the margin was subjected to tectonic uplift and dissection until the Oligocene when continental and shallow marine sediments of the Otay Formation were deposited. Following the Oligocene time, the coastal margin was uplifted causing considerable erosion. In the Pliocene, major marine transgression resulted in the deposition of marine sandstone and transitional marine and continental pebble and cobble conglomerate, belonging to the San Diego Formation.

After the deposition of the San Diego Formation and continuing to present day, the coastal margin has experienced relatively steady uplift. This has resulted in the emergence of continually evolving marine terraces. Dissection of these terraces and older rocks has led to the accumulation of alluvial deposits within the major drainage courses and beach deposits along the shoreline areas.

Regional geologic mapping by Kennedy and Tan (2008) indicates that the subject site is mantled by Quaternary-age old paralic deposits (subunit 6), which were formerly referred to as the Quaternary-age Bay Point Formation on the former regional geologic map (Kennedy, 1975). Kennedy and Tan (2008) describe subunit 6 of the old paralic deposits as, “Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-EURZQ LQWHUÞQJHUHG VWUDQGOLQH beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate.” These deposits rest upon the approximately 120,000-year-old Nestor terrace, an emergent wave-cut abrasion platform preserved by regional uplift.

According to Kennedy and Tan (2008), these deposits are underlain by Tertiary-age (middle-Eocene-age) sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the Torrey Sandstone. These researchers show the Torrey Sandstone overlying older Tertiary-age (also middle-Eoceneage) sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the Delmar Formation below the subject property.

Kennedy and Tan (2008) describe the Torrey Sandstone as, “White to light-brown, mediumto coarse-grained, moderately well indurated, massive and broadly cross bedded, arkosic Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 5
sandstone.” Kennedy and Tan (2008) characterize the Delmar Formation as, “Duskyyellowish-green, sandy, claystone interbedded with medium-gray, coarse-grained sandstone.

GSI did not observe readily apparent evidence of the Del Mar Formation outcropping on the coastal bluff directly below the subject property. However, the Del Mar Formation was exposed in the near-vertical sea cliff portion of the coastal bluff approximately 20 feet north of the subject property, as evidenced by the presence of a relatively thin mudstone bed near the top of the sea cliff exposure at this location. Here, the Delmar Formation was truncated by the northernmost, northeast-trending fault shown on Plate 1. 6XUÞFLDO JHRORJLF PDSSLQJ E\ 5RIIHUV DQG %HGURVVLDQ
LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH VLWH LV
mantled by Quaternary-age Old Lacustrine, Playa, and Estuarine (Paralic) Deposits composed of, “slightly to moderately consolidated, moderately GLVVHFWHGÞQH-grained sand, silt, mud, and clay from lake, playa, and estuarine deposits of various types.” Roffers and Bedrossian (2010) show these deposits underlain by, “Coarse-grained Tertiary age formations primarily consisting of sandstone and conglomerate.

GEOLOGIC UNITS
The geologic units encountered during our mapping and subsurface exploration programs included Quaternary-age beach deposits, localized areas of Quaternary talus and XQGRFXPHQWHGDUWLÞFLDOÞOO Quaternary-age colluvium, Quaternary-age old paralic deposits, and Tertiary-age sedimentary bedrock units belonging to the Torrey Sandstone and Delmar Formation. These units are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest.

Detailed descriptions are presented in the boring logs included in Appendix B. The areal distribution of these units across the site is shown on Plate 1. Plate 2 (Geologic Cross-Section X-;p
VKRZVWKHVHJHRORJLFXQLWVLQSURÞOHYLHZDORQJDVHOHFWHGWUDYHUVH Quaternary Beach Deposits (Map Symbol - Qb)
A transient shingle beach, composed of sand with cobbles, occurs along the shoreline at the base of the coastal bluff. The thickness of the beach deposits varies seasonally. Typically, during the more energetic wave regime occurring LQWKHZLQWHUPRQWKVWKHEHDFKSURÞOH thins as wave action erodes and transports the sand offshore, where it settles out of suspension to form sand bars. Some of the eroded and transported sand may also be lost in offshore canyons. During the generally quiescent summer months, the sand migrates toward the shoreline, ZLGHQLQJWKHEHDFKDQGWKLFNHQLQJLWVSURÞOH Due to their elevation, the beach deposits will not be encountered during the proposed development.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 6
Quaternary Talus (Map Symbol – Qtal)
A localized area of Quaternary talus occurs upon the lower and middle portions of the upper-bluff slope, near the northwestern property corner. In general, the talus consists of dry to damp, loose, dark-yellowish-brown and gray sand and silty sand that is up to approximately 2 feet thick. The talus is derived from the weathering and subaerial erosion of the up-gradient deposits. The potential for encountering the talus during the currently proposed development is very low. Due to its loose, unconsolidated state, the talus is highly susceptible to erosion.
$UWLÞFLDO)LOO - Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu)
$UWLÞFLDOÞOOZDVHQFRXQWHUHGDWWKHVXUIDFHin the borings, and extended to depths on the order of 1¾ and 2½ feet below the existing grades. 7KH DUWLÞFLDO ÞOO FRQVLVWHG of reddish-yellow, dark-yellowish-brown, and dark-brownish-gray silty sand; dark-brown and dark-yellowish-EURZQÞQH- to medium-grained sand; and reddish-yellow clayey sand. 7KHÞOO was generally moist and loose to medium dense. 7KH XQGRFXPHQWHG ÞOO LV FRQVLGHUHG potentially compressible in its existing state.

Quaternary Colluvium (Not Mapped)

4XDWHUQDU\ FROOXYLXP

WRSVRLO
ZDV HQFRXQWHUHG XQGHUO\LQJ WKH XQGRFXPHQWHG ÞOO LQ WKH borings. As observed, the colluvium consisted of dark-EURZQ ÞQH-grained sand and dark-grayish-brown silty sand that were damp to moist and loose to medium dense. The colluvium in the borings was approximately 1 to 2 feet thick. The colluvium is also considered potentially compressible in its existing state.

Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop)
Quaternary-DJHROGSDUDOLFGHSRVLWVZHUHHQFRXQWHUHGEHQHDWKWKHVXUÞFLDODUWLÞFLDOÞOOand colluvium in the borings at depths varying between approximately 3 and 4½ feet below the existing grades. However, the upper approximately ¼ foot to 1¼ feet of these deposits were weathered. The weathered old paralic deposits in the borings consisted of brown and dark-brown silty sand that was dry to moist and loose to medium dense. These deposits also outcropped on the adjacent coastal bluff above approximate elevation 20 feet NAVD88.

For the purpose of the slope stability analyses presented herein, we subdivided the old paralic deposits into two subunits. The uppermost subunit (Subunit 2) is approximately 10 feet thick, and consists of a residual soil composed of lightly cemented dark-yellowish-brown silty sand The lower subunit (Subunit 1) consists of ancient dune, beach ridge, shoreface, and beach deposits composed of dark-gray, light-gray, brownish-gray, and light-EURZQ ÞQH- to medium-grained sand, with traces of subrounded gravel near its base. The unweathered old paralic deposits in the borings were generally dry to damp and dense.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 7
Weathered old paralic deposits are considered potentially compressible in their existing state. Unweathered old paralic deposits, occurring at depths ranging between approximately 4 and 4¾ feet below the existing grades, based on the available subsurface data, are suitable bearing materials within the subject property.

Tertiary-age Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol - Tt)
The Tertiary-age Torrey Sandstone was encountered underlying the old paralic deposits in Boring B-1 at an approximate depth of 50 feet below the existing grade. It also outcrops on the near-vertical sea cliff section of the coastal bluff, below approximate elevation 20 feet above NAVD88.

The Torrey Sandstone in Boring B-1 consisted of light-gray and light-yellowish-brown, ÞQH- to medium-grained sandstone. The Torrey Sandstone was also relatively dry and dense to very dense in the aforementioned boring.

The Torrey Sandstone is also suitable bearing material within the subject property. However, due to its depth below the proposed development area, the possibility of encountering Torrey Sandstone during earthwork construction is considered very low.

Tertiary-age Delmar Formation (Map Symbol Td)

The Tertiary-age Delmar Formation was encountered in Boring B-1 at an approximate depth of 60 feet below the existing grade, or at approximate elevation 10 feet above NAVD88. The elevation at which the Delmar Formation was encountered in Boring B-1 places its contact with the overlying Torrey Sandstone slightly below the exposed toe of the adjacent coastal bluff, which explains why GSI did not observe the Delmar Formation outcropping on the coastal bluff directly adjacent to the subject property.

The Delmar Formation in Boring B-1 consisted of dark-yellowish-brown clayey sandstone and gray sandy claystone with concretions composed of brownish-gray, moderately cemented clayey sandstone. As observed in Boring B-1, the Delmar Formation was moist to wet and very dense/hard.

GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE

The Torrey Sandstone outcropping on the coastal bluff, adjacent to the subject property, generally exhibited planar cross-bedding dipping approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the southeast. GSI measured the attitude of a mudstone bed, associated with the Delmar Formation, located to the north of the subject property. This bed was observed dipping approximately 13 degrees to the southeast. The Tertiary-age sediments were disrupted by several northeast-trending faults with strikes varying between approximately N33°E and N83°E and dips ranging between roughly 42 degrees and vertical. The faults generally exhibited normal, down-to-the-north senses of displacement with the exception of the northernmost fault shown on Plate 1. This particular fault appeared to juxtapose the Torrey Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 8
Sandstone on the southern side of the fault with the Delmar Formation on the northern side of the fault, suggesting a reverse, up-to-the-north sense of movement. Reverse faulting may explain the elevated shore platform, known as Table Tops Reef, immediately offshore of the subject parcel. Northeast-trending, vertical joints were also observed within the Torrey Sandstone. With the exception of the subhorizontal beds in the ancient beach deposits near the basal extent of the old paralic deposits, the old paralic deposits were mostly thickly bedded.

ONSITE SOILS AND STORM WATER INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY
According to soil data published by the United States Department of Agriculture / Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA / NRCS) on their “Web Soil Survey” website (https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), the onsite soil consists of the Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes. The attributes of this soil are summarized in the following table.

SOIL TYPE
(MAP UNIT)

LANDFORM

SETTING

NATURAL

DRAINAGE
CLASS
RUNOFF
CLASS

CAPACITY OF THE

MOST LIMITING

LAYER TO

TRANSMIT WATER
(Ksat)

HYDROLOGIC

SOIL GROUP
Marina loamy coarse
sand, 2 to 9 percent
slopes
(MiC)
Ridges
Somewhat
Excessively
drained
Medium
Moderately high to
high (0.57 to

1.98 inches per
hour)
B
Although a hydrologic soil group “B” designation is assigned to the onsite soil unit, based on RXUREVHUYDWLRQVGXULQJWKH UHFHQWJHRWHFKQLFDOÞHOGVWXG\DQGRXUSDVWZRUNH[SHULHQFH with other sites underlain by similar geology, it is our opinion that there is a moderate to high SRWHQWLDOIRULQÞOWUDWHGVWRUPZDWHUWRDFFXPXODWHXSRQWKHunweathered old paralic deposits and the underlying Tertiary-age sedimentary bedrock units in the subsurface (i.e., perched groundwater). The perched groundwater can migrate laterally in the subsurface and adversely affect the performance of the existing and proposed onsite improvements as well as those located on the adjacent properties. In addition, perched groundwater can negatively affect the stability of the adjacent coastal bluff. 7KXVLQÞOWUDWLQJVWRUPZDWHULQWR the onsite soils to meet permanent post-construction storm water best management practices (BMPs) is not considered sound engineering practice and is not recommended, from a geotechnical perspective.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 9

GROUNDWATER
GSI did not observe evidence of groundwater within the geotechnical borings or seeping from the coastal bluff face. The regional groundwater table is estimated to be nearly coincident with sea level (NAVD88). Our observations related to groundwater reflect the site FRQGLWLRQV DW WKH WLPH RI RXU ÞHOG VWXG\ DQG GR QRW SUHFOXGH IXWXUH FKDQJHV WR ORFDO groundwater levels resulting from shorter-term meteorological events, longer-term climatic variations, up-gradient irrigation practices, or other conditions that were not readily obvious GXULQJRXUÞHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQ.

Groundwater is not expected to be a VLJQLÞFDQW geotechnical factor relative to the proposed site development. However, due to the nature of the onsite soils, seepage or perched groundwater conditions may develop prior to, during, and following the proposed site development, especially along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities and densities (i.e., ÞOO lifts, geologic contacts, bedding, discontinuities, etc.), and should be anticipated. This potential should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties.

Due to the potential for post-development perched groundwater to manifest near the surface, more onerous concrete slab-on-grade floor design is recommended for compliance with the California Civil Code (State of California, 2025). Recommendations for reducing the amount of water and water vapor transmission through new building foundations and concrete slab-on-grade floors are provided in the “Soil Moisture Considerations” section of this report.

These recommendations should be implemented if the transmission of water or water vapor through the new floor slab could adversely affect moisture-sensitive floor coverings, adhesives, or other building components, or the building contents. Should these mitigative measures not be implemented, the potential for water or water vapor to pass through the foundations and floor slabs, and the related problems cannot be precluded, which would require disclosure to all interested/affected parties.

GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATIONS
General

GSI has evaluated the subject parcel relative to geologic and seismic hazards that could affect the proposed development. These hazards are described below.

Mass Wasting/Landslide Susceptibility
Mass wasting refers to the various processes by which earth materials are moved down slope LQUHVSRQVHWRWKHIRUFHRIJUDYLW\([DPSOHVRIWKHVHSURFHVVHVLQFOXGHVORSHFUHHSVXUÞFLDO failures, and deep-seated landslides. Creep is the slowest form of mass wasting and generally involves the outer 5 to 10 feet of a slope surface. During heavy rains, such as those occurring during El Niño events, creep-affected materials may become saturated, resulting in a more rapid form of downslope movement (i.e., laQGVOLGHVRUVXUÞFLDOVORSHIDLOXUHV
Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 10
According to regional landslide susceptibility mapping by Tan and Giffen (1995), the boundary between Relative Landslide Susceptibility Subareas 3-1 and 4-1 traverses the subject property. In general, the developed portion of the subject property is located within Relative Landslide Susceptibility Subarea 3-1. Whereas, the adjacent coastal bluff is situated within Relative Landslide Susceptibility Subareas 4-1.

Relative Landslide Susceptibility Subarea 3-1 is characterized as being “generally susceptible” to landsliding. Tan and Giffen (1995) indicates that slopes within Subarea 3 -1 are at or near their stability limits resulting from a combination of steep slopes and weak materials. Although landslide deposits do not currently occur along most slopes within Subarea 3-ORFDOL]HGVORSHVIDLOXUHVFDQRFFXUZKHQWKHVORSHVDUHDGYHUVHO\PRGLÞHG Tan and Giffen (1995) indicate that slopes within Relative Landslide Susceptibility Subarea 4-1 are most susceptible to landslides, but are generally not located within the boundaries of GHÞQLWHPDSSHGODQGVOLGHV+RZHYHUthe slopes within this Subarea are underlain by weak materials and adverse geologic structure, and include questionable landslides and oversteepened high coastal bluffs, which are subject to marine erosion.

The coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property is susceptible to small- to moderate-scale landslides resulting from episodic marine and subaerial erosion. However, the slope stability and bluff retreat rate analyses, discussed later in this report, demonstrate that the proposed addition to the existing residential structure would maintain adequate factors-of-safety against bluff failure and retreat over its 75-year design life without the need for coastal bluff protection measures.

Faulting and Regional Seismicity
Regional Faults
Our review indicates that there are no known Holocene-active faults (i.e., faults that have ruptured in the last 11,700 years) crossing the subject parcel, and the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey [CGS], 2018). However, the site is situated in a region subject to periodic earthquakes along Holocene-active faults. According to Blake (2000a), the Rose Canyon fault is the closest known Holocene-active fault to the site. Blake (2000a) indicates that the Rose Canyon fault is located at a distance of approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 kilometers) to the southwest.

According to Cao, et al. (2003), the slip rate on the Rose Canyon fault is

1.5 (±0.5) millimeters per year (mm/yr). These researchers also report that the Rose Canyon faut has the potential to produce a maximum magnitude 7.2 earthquake. Based on its location, the Rose Canyon fault should have the greatest effect on the site in the form of strong ground shaking, should the design earthquake occur. The locations of the Rose Canyon fault, and other major faults within 100 kilometers of the subject parcel are shown on the “California Fault Map” in Appendix C.

Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 11
Figure 2 shows the locations of faults in the southern California region that have produced historical earthquakes (red lines) and earthquakes within the Holocene Epoch (green lines), Late Quaternary Period (yellow lines), Quaternary Period (blue lines), prior to the Quaternary Period (black lines).

Figure 2 - Fault Activity Map of Southern California (adopted from the “Fault Activity Map of California [https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/]) Local Faulting
As previously stated, several northeast-trending faults were observed in the Tertiary-age sediments outcropping on the near-vertical sea cliff section of the adjacent coastal bluff. GSI did not observe readily visible evidence that these faults disrupt, displace, warp or otherwise deform the overlying old paralic deposits with a minimum age of approximately 120,000 years. Thus, these faults do not meet the State of California’s criteria of Holocene-active.

Surface Rupture
Owing to the lack of known Holocene-active faults crossing the site, the potential for surface rupture from fault displacement propagating to the ground surface of the subject property is considered very low.

Seismicity
The acceleration-attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) has been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). EQFAULT is a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using digitized California faults as earthquake sources.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 12
The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound (formerly “maximum credible earthquake”) on that fault. Upper bound refers to the maximum expected ground acceleration produced from a given fault. Site acceleration (g) was computed by one user-selected acceleration-attenuation relation that is contained in EQFAULT. Based on the EQFAULT program, a peak horizontal ground acceleration at the site from an upper-bound event on the Rose Canyon fault may be on the order of 0.75 g. The computer printouts of pertinent portions of the EQFAULT program are included within Appendix C.

Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999), and the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000b, updated to May 8, 2021). This program performs a search of the historical earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-kilometer radius of a site, between the years 1800 through May 8, 2021. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation relationship, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, whicKPD\KDYHDIIHFWHGWKHVLWHGXULQJWKHVSHFLÞFWLPHIUDPH The results of the historical seismicity evaluation suggest that the subject property experienced an estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period 1800 through May 8, 2021 of approximately 0.71 g. The historical earthquake records indicate that this site acceleration was produced from a November 22, 1800 earthquake occurring on the Clark Strand of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. A historic earthquake epicenter map and a seismic recurrence curve were also estimated/generated from the historical data and provided in Appendix C.

Seismic Shaking Parameters
The following table summarizes the site-VSHFLÞF GHVLJQ FULWHULD REWDLQHG IURP WKH 2022 California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2022). The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 seconds. The website application “ASCE Hazard Tool,” provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers (https://ascehazardtool.org/), DVVLVWHGZLWKRXUHYDOXDWLRQ%DVHGRQRXUREVHUYDWLRQVGXULQJRXUUHFHQWÞHOGVWXG\DQG our past work experience with other sites underlain by a similar near-VXUIDFHJHRORJLFSURÞOH, it is our opinion that the use of Site Class “D” (Default) conditions for the evaluation of the site-VSHFLÞFVHLVPLFGHVLJQSDUDPHWHUVLVDUHDVRQDEO\FRQVHUYDWLYHDSSURDFK Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 13
2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

PARAMETER

SITE SPECIFIC

VALUE PER
ASCE 7-16
2022 CBC or ASCE 7-16

REFERENCE
Risk Category* I, II, or III Table 1604.5
Site Class D Section 1613.2.2/Chap. 20
ASCE 7-16 (p. 203-204)
Spectral Response - (0.2 sec), Ss 1.247 g Section 1613.2.1 Figure 1613.2.1(1)
Spectral Response - (1 sec), S1 0.442 g Section 1613.2.1 + 1613.2.1(2)
Site &RHIÞFLHQW)a 1.2 Table 1613.2.3(1)
6LWH&RHIÞFLHQW)v N/A Table 1613.2.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SMS

1.496 g Section 1613.2.3
(Eqn 16-36)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration (1 sec),SM1
N/A Section 1613.2.3
(Eqn 16-37)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
Acceleration (0.2 sec), SDS

0.997 g Section 1613.2.4
(Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
Acceleration (1 sec), SD1
N/A Section 1613.2.4
(Eqn 16-39)
PGAM (Probabilistic Vertical Ground
Acceleration may be assumed as about 50 of
this value.

0.673 g ASCE 7-16 (Eqn 11.8.1)
Seismic Design Category N/A Section 1613.2.5/ASCE 7-16
(p. 85: Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2)
* - Risk Category to be FRQÞUPHGE\WKHSURMHFWDUFKLWHFWRUVWUXFWXUDOHQJLQHHU

GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS

PARAMETER VALUE
Distance to Design Seismic Source
(Rose Canyon fault) 2.9 mi (4.7 km)(1)
Upper Bound Earthquake
(Rose Canyon fault) MW = 7.2(2)
(1) - Blake (2000a)
(2) - Cao, et al. (2003)

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 14

SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
Liquefaction
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to vertical deformation, lateral movement, lurching, sliding, and as a result of seismic loading, volumetric strain and manifestation in surface settlement of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.

One of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is the depth to groundwater. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 50 feet and is unlikely or will produce vertical strains well below 1 percent for depths greater than 60 feet, when relative densities are 40 to 60 percent and effective overburden pressures are two or more atmospheres (i.e., 4,232 pounds per square foot [Seed, 2005]). The condition of liquefaction has two principal effects. One is the consolidation of loose sediments with resultant settlement of the ground surface. The other effect is lateral spreading 6LJQLÞFDQW SHUPDQHQW ODWHUDO PRYHPHQW JHQHUDOO\ RFFXUV RQO\ ZKHQ WKHUH LV VLJQLÞFDQW GLIIHUHQWLDO ORDGLQJ VXFK DV ÞOO RU QDWXUDO JURXQG VORSHV ZLWKLQ VXVFHSWLEOH materials. No such loading conditions exist at the site. /LTXHIDFWLRQVXVFHSWLELOLW\ LV UHODWHGWR QXPHURXVIDFWRUV DQGWKHIROORZLQJÞYH FRQGLWLRQV should be concurrently present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments must JHQHUDOO\FRQVLVWRIÞQH- to medium-grained, relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) WKHVLWHPXVWH[SHULHQFHDVHLVPLFHYHQWRIDVXIÞFLHQWGuration and magnitude, to induce VWUDLQLQJ RI VRLO SDUWLFOHV 2QO\ DERXW WZR RI WKHVH ÞYH QHFHVVDU\ FRQGLWLRQV KDYH WKH potential to affect the site, concurrently.

Summary
It is the opinion of GSI that the susceptibility of the site to experience damaging deformations from seismically-induced liquefaction is relatively low owing to the dense, nature of the old paralic deposits, the Torrey Sandstone, and Delmar Formation that underlie the site. In addition, the recommendations in this report for remedial earthwork and foundation design DQGFRQVWUXFWLRQZRXOGIXUWKHUUHGXFHDQ\VLJQLÞFDQWOLTXHIDFWLRQSRWHQWLDO 6HLVPLF'HQVLÞFDWLRQ
6HLVPLFGHQVLÞFDWLRQLVDSKHQRPHQRQLQZKLFKVWURQJHDUWKTXDNHPRWLRQVDQGRWKHUW\SHV of cyclic loading cause volumetric strains in unsaturated or partially saturated, cohesionless Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 15
VRLOV7KHXQGRFXPHQWHGÞOOFROOXYLXPDQGZHDWKHUHGROGSDUDOLFGHSRVLWVDUHFRQVLGHUHG VXVFHSWLEOH WR VHLVPLF GHQVLÞFDWLRQ LQ WKHLU H[LVWLQJ VWDWH +RZHYHU WKH UHFRPPHQGHG remedial grading for the proposed development would provide mitigation against this phenomenon.

Tsunami
Tsunamis are a series of waves caused by a rapid displacement of water volume, within a body of water. This accelerated change in volume can be caused by displacement of the seafloor due to faulting or other factors such as volcanic eruptions, landslides, glacier calving, meteorite impacts, and underwater explosions. According to tsunami hazard mapping by California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps), the subject property is not located in a tsunami hazard zone. Thus, the proposed development is at low risk for tsunami inundation.

However, the adjacent coastal bluff could potentially experience some tsunami-related erosion. However, historical records indicate the frequency of tsunami reaching the San Diego County coastline is relatively low and the height of historical tsunami have been within the normal tidal range. Thus, effects from a tsunami would be generally similar to those created by storm waves.

Other Geologic/Secondary Seismic Hazards
The following list includes other geologic-/seismic-related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible or mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures:
x Hydroconsolidation/Hydrocollapse
x Subsidence due to fluid withdrawal
x Coseismic deformation (Ground lurching or shallow ground rupture) x Seiche

COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY
The typical coastal-EOXIISURÞOHPD\EHdivided into three zones: the shore platform; a lower near-vertical cliff surface termed the sea cliff; and an upper-bluff slope generally ranging in inclination between about 20 and 80 degrees (measured from the horizontal). The bluff top or bluff edge is the boundary between the upper-bluff slope and the relatively flat-lying to gently sloping coastal terrace.
2IIVKRUHIURPWKHVHDFOLIILVDQDUHDRILQGHÞQLWHH[WHQWWHUPHGWKHQHDU-shore zone. The bedrock surface in the near-shore zone, which extends out to sea from the base of the sea cliff, is the shore platform. As pointed out by Trenhaile (1987), worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from near-horizontal to as steep as 3:1 (h:v). In the Encinitas and Solana Beach areas, the shore platform extends 500 to 900 feet offshore at a 1 to 2 percent Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 16
grade (United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACOE], 2015). The boundary between the sea cliff (the lower vertical and near-vertical section of the bluff) and the shore platform is called the cliff-platform junction, or sometimes the shoreline angle. Within the near-shore zone is a subdivision called the inshore zone, where the waves begin to break. This boundary varies with time because the point at which waves begin to break changes dramatically depending on wave size and tidal level. During low tides, large waves will begin to break further away from shore. During high tides, waves may not break at all, or they may break directly on the lower cliff. Closer to shore is the foreshore zone, or the portion of the shore occurring between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark.

Both of these boundaries often lie on a sand or cobble beach. In this case, a shoreline with a bluff, the foreshore zone extends from low water to the lower face of the bluff. (PHU\DQG.XKQ

GHYHORSHGDJOREDOV\VWHPRIFODVVLÞFDWLRQRIFRDVWDOEOXIISURÞOHV and applied that system to the San Diego County coastline from San Onofre State Park to the southern tip of Point Loma. Emery and Kuhn (1982) designated the Solana Beach coastline as “active” and “Type A-c.” The letter “A” designates homogenous coastal bluffs with respect to relative erodibility. The relative effectiveness of marine erosion compared to VXEDHULDOHURVLRQRIWKHEOXIISURGXFHVDFKDUDFWHULVWLFSURÞle. The letter “c” indicates that the long-term rate of marine erosion is approximately equal to that of subaerial erosion.

LONG-TERM SEA LEVEL CHANGE
Long-term (geologic) sea level change is the major factor determining coastal evolution (Emery and Aubrey, 1991). Three general sea level conditions have been recognized: rising (typically interglacial), falling (typically glacial), and stationary (although of a transient nature).

The rising and falling stages result in massive sediment release and transport, while the stationary stage allows time for adjustment and reorganization toward equilibrium. Changes in sea level are largely influenced by climate variations.

Periodic variations in the Earth’s orbital eccentricity, obliquity, and precession index induce insolation variations at 104
- to 106-year time scales, known as Milankovitch cycles, which lead to climate change (Wu, et al., 2023), and hence, the rising and falling of sea level. The Earth’s geologic record of Milankovitch cycles closely tracks solar system solutions for the past 50 million years. Wu, et al. (2023) point out that Milankovitch cycles have been recognized in the sedimentary record from the Precambrian (4.567 billion to 542 million years ago), to present.

Overall, our planet has experienced a long decline in temperatures. Commencing about

3.5 million years ago, a series of 45 ice ages began. This long period of increasing cold began with ice ages on a 41,000-year cycle and included 33 separate glacial events. For the last 1.25 million years, we have been in a more severe 100,000-year cycle in which, during 13 ice ages, there were glaciations lasting typically 90,000 years and interglacial warm periods lasting about 10,000 years (Carter, 2011). It is intuitively obvious that the warming and cooling of the Earth have natural causes (Milankovitch cycles), and those natural causes did not magically halt at the start of the Industrial Revolution (Wrightstone, 2017).

Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 17
Major changes in sea level of the Quaternary period were caused by worldwide climate fluctuation resulting in at least 17 glacial and interglacial stages in the last 800,000 years, and many before then (Shakelton and Opdyke,1976), as indicated in Figure 3, below. As can be seen in Figure 3, each of the last inter-glacial warming periods (as we are in today), were VLJQLÞFDQWO\ ZDUPHU WKDQ RXU FXUUHQW WHPSHUDWXUH
-RX]HO DQG 0DVVRQ-Delmotte, 2007;
Wrightstone, 2017). Worldwide sea level rise associated with the melting of continental glaciers is commonly referred to as “glacio-eustatic” or “true” sea level rise. During the past 200,000 years, eustatic sea level has ranged from more than approximately 350 feet below the present level to possibly as high as about approximately 31 feet above.

Figure 3 (from Figure 7.1 [IPCC, 1990]): Schematic diagrams of global temperature variations since the Pleistocene on three time scales (a) the last million years (b) the last ten thousand years and (c) the last thousand years. The dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 18
7HFWRQLFDFWLYLW\FDQDOVRDFFRXQWIRUVLJQLÞFDQWUHODWLYHFKDQJHVLQVHDOHYHORQDORFDOVFDOH Past movement along the Rose Canyon fault zone and associated faults, which served to uplift Mount Soledad and formed Point La Jolla, also created a zone of structural weakness along which the La Jolla Submarine Canyon has been incised. The Torrey Pines block, with LWV UHODWLYHO\ KRUL]RQWDOO\ VWUDWLÞHG (RFHQH-age formations and wave-cut terraces, has experienced more than 450 feet of tectonic uplift in the last 2 million years, while the tilted and uplifted Soledad Mountain block has undergone more than 750 feet of tectonic uplift in the same period (Kern, 1977). Sea level changes during the last approximately 20,000 years have resulted in an approximately 350-foot rise in sea level when relatively cold global climates of the Wisconsin ice age started to become warmer, melting a substantial portion of the continental ice caps (Curray, 1960 and 1961; CLIMAP, 1976).

As indicated in Figure 3, following the peak of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) about 18,000 to 20,000 years ago, Earth entered the present interglacial warm period (they usually last 10,000 to 15,000 years [the current one is about 11,000 years old (Wrightstone, 2017)]). ,QWHUHVWLQJO\GXULQJWKHODVW\HDUVWKHUHKDYHEHHQDWOHDVWVLJQLÞFDQWinstances of sea level rise and fall. Contrary to popular climate theology, both the rate of SLR and the associated global temperature were greater during those events, than the late 20th century period of SLR (Ally, 2004), which has been cited as “unprecedented,” in order to justify political/economic agendas. Global sea level rose very rapidly at rates as high as 50 millimeters per year (mm/yr) or approximately 1.97 inches per year (in/yr), with a mean rate of about 10 mm/yr (0.39 in/yr) between the Late Pleistocene (about 15,000 years ago) and mid-Holocene time.

About 5,000 to 3,000 years ago, sea level was about 1 to 7.2 meters (approximately 3.2 to

23.6 feet) above the current level (Hein, et al., 2014; Yu, et al., 2007), and has since fallen, and risen to a lesser degree, since that time, but has never remained static for long periods.

During the past 3,000 to 2,000 years, the rate appears to have fluctuated and slowed to approximately 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2001).

The National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council, 2012) indicates that in the 20th century, the rate of SLR was about 1.7 mm/yr (0.067 in/yr), and has concluded that over the past 20 years, the rate has increased to about 3.1 mm/yr (0.12 in/yr), requiring increases of 3 to 4 times the current rate needed to realize a scenario of 1 meter (3.2 feet) of SLR by 2100.

It is estimated that sea level along the California coast rose approximately 0.6 feet over the past century, since annual mean sea levels were measured at the La Jolla tide gauge, starting in 1924 (tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov.sltrends.sltrends.html). A graph of sea level rise over the last 20,000 years is provided below, as Figure 4 (Figure 4 of Doyle, et al., 2015).

Newly adopted guidelines by the California Coastal Commission ([CCC], 2024) indicate that the planning scenario for SLR is based on the mindset that greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), are causing global warming, and further point out that risk scenarios follow current greenhouse gas emissions tracking. CCC (2024) incorporates new SLR data from the IPCC (2021, 2023), which suggests that greenhouse gas emissions are tracking considerably lower than previously hypothesized. The CCC indicates that the Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 19
ranges of SLR described in CCC (2024) are the “new best available science” in spite of the ODFNRIDEURDGVFLHQWLÞFFRQVHQVXV
Figure 4 - Sea Level Rise over the last 20,000 years
As previously indicated in Figure 3, approximately 60 percent of the current inter-glacial warming period was warmer then than it is today (see Figure 2 [IPCC, 1990; Ally, 2004; Box, et al., 2009; and Wrightstone, 2017]). Again, contrary to popular belief, the earth has been in a warming trend for the last approximately 350 years (see Figure 3 [from IPCC, 1990]), commencing about 100 years (~1650 AD) before the Industrial Revolution (~1750 AD).

In fact, CO2 has a 140-million year trend of decreasing atmospheric concentration (Berner, 2001; Wrightstone, 2017), to historic and current levels (~285-405 parts per million [ppm]), as indicated in Figure 5, below. The predicted large rise in sea level comes from computer climate models predicated on greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO2, which accounts for a mere ~6 percent of all greenhouse gases) causing global temperature to rise (rather than the contrary), regardless of the dubious correlation of that relationship during geologic time (see Figure 5, below). Clearly, other natural cycles, besides atmospheric carbon, influence earth temperatures and global warming. Again, these natural cycles did not just suddenly halt at the commencement of the Industrial Revolution.

Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 20
Figure 5 - Geologic Timescale: Concentration of CO2 and Temperature Fluctuations

FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE
Currently, there is a wide range of predicted rates in SLR over the next century, from several inches to over 6 feet. 7KLVZLGHUDQJHPDNHVLWH[WUHPHO\GLIÞFXOWIRUWKHGHVLJQRIFRDVWDO development. 7KHUDWHDQGPDJQLWXGHRI6/5LVQRWVHWWOHGVFLHQWLÞFDOO\ VHH1erem, 2005;
Nerem, et al., 2006, Nerem, et al., 2018; Wrightstone, 2017). IPCC (2021) shows a wide ÞHOGRIXQFHUWDLQW\EH\RQGDQGLVGULYHQE\WKHYDULDEOHVLQWKHPRGHOVHOHFWHGPRVW importantly water vapor (clouds) and CO2, both gases being “greenhouse” gases, with water vapor constituting 90 percent, and CO2 comprising a mere ~6 percent of all greenhouse gases. In other words, the so-called “greenhouse” effect is principally controlled by natural water vapor (at least 30 times greater), and not by CO2.

Summaries of the more recent evolving studies of potential SLR magnitudes are provided below.

In 2006, the California Climate Change Center produced a “white paper” entitled “Projecting Future Sea Level.” The purpose of that report was not to set coastal planning policy but Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 21
rather to play out a range of scenarios of SLR and discuss potential impacts. The paper reports that sea level along the United States (US) west coast has been rising at a rate of about 0.08 in/yr over the last century. 7KHDXWKRUVRIWKHZKLWHSDSHUUHÞQHGWKHLUZRUNDQG SURGXFHGDVFLHQWLÞFSDSHULQWLWOHGq&OLPDWH&KDQJH3URMHFWLRQVRI6HD/HYHO([WUHPHV Along the California Coast.” This paper provides a range in SLR from 11 cm (4.3 in) to 72 cm (28 in) over the next 100 years. Even though theUH LV QR VFLHQWLÞF FRQVHQVXV (Wrightstone, 2017), modeling of future climates drives a change in the calculated rate of SLR.

With regard to SLR for coastal engineers, Chapter 5 of the 2009 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) provides an extensive discussion of water levels used for the design of coastal development. A summary of the CEM conclusions with regard to SLR and climate change are reproduced below:
x The primary conclusion was, with some regional exceptions, sea level is not rising at a rate to cause undue concern. Results of the report indicate an average SLR over the past century of approximately 30 cm/century along the US east coast, and 11 cm/century along the US west coast, and a range along the US Gulf of Mexico coast, from less than 20 cm/century for the west coast of Florida to more than 100 cm/century in parts of the Mississippi delta plain. x The USACOE uses a 4.3-inch (11 cm) rise in sea level for the US west coast over the next 100 years.

More detailed planning and engineering policy in 2011 was followed by the release of USACOE (2013), that requires consideration of three scenarios. Practitioners, however, also are allowed to consider a higher rate of sea-level change (for example, global rise of

2.0 meters (m) at year 2100 global scenario), LI MXVWLÞHG E\ SURMHFW FRQGLWLRQV (USACOE, 2013). ,QDGGLWLRQWKHIOH[LELOLW\WRXVHHYHQKLJKHUVFHQDULRVZKHQMXVWLÞHGFDQ DFFRXQWIRU FKDQJHV LQ VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLÞFDQWWUHQGV DQG QHZNQRZOHdge about SLR. In 2014, USACOE published technical guidance for adaptation to SLR, including examples of how to incorporate the effects of sea-level change on coastal processes, project performance, and project response within a tiered, risk-based planning framework.

Computer climate models make an enormous range of assumptions; however, they have not been able to accurately predict the unfolding short-termer climate fluctuations. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) approximate range for global sea level rise in the year 2100 was 0.6 m (2 feet [ft]) to 2.2 m (7.2 ft) above present sea level, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ([NOAA], 2017) range is about 0.3 m (0.98 ft) to about 3.14 m (10.3 ft). However, the latest data in IPCC (2021, 2023) does not support more than a few feet of SLR over the next 75 years.

The former SLR guidance by the CCC (2018), indicated that the planning scenario for a “medium-high risk aversion” (based on greenhouse gas emissions), should be considered, and further pointed out that the high-risk scenario follows the greenhouse gas emissions Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 22
tracking hypotheses considered at that time. CCC (2018) used older data from IPCC (2019).

CCC (2018) also indicated that the ranges of SLR, reported therein, were the “best available VFLHQFHrDJDLQLQVSLWHRIWKHODFNRIEURDGVFLHQWLÞFFRQVHQVXV Most recently, in June 2024, the California Sea Level Rise Science Task Force, California Ocean Protection Council (OPC), and California Ocean Science Trust released its most recent update to the “State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance” (California Sea Level Rise Science Task Force [CSLRSTF] et al.
ZKLFK UHIOHFWV WKH SUHYLRXV ÞYH \HDUV RI
VFLHQWLÞFUHVHDUFKRQ6/5SURMHFWLRQVLQFOXGLQJWKH,3&&pV6L[WK$VVHVVPHQW5HSRUW (2021) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) national report titled, “Global and National Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States” (Sweet et al., 2022). The CCC’s 2024 SLR guidance document (CCC, 2024) is now updated for consistency with CSLRSTF et al. (2024), and addresses other developments that have occurred since the release of CCC (2018), including updated SLR scenarios.

The relative SLR measured at the Scripps-La Jolla tide gauge from 1924-2024 fell well below the CCC’s and the USACOE’s projections. While somewhat variable from year to year, the SLR trend has maintained a relatively uniform 2.02 mm/yr (±0.22 mm/yr) for the past century.

This has been noted in the IPCC’s “Sixth Assessment Report” (IPCC, 2021), where different scenarios have been adopted, based on current measurements at this same tide gauge, since the old predictions could not accurately predict SLR for even the last 20 years, and ostensibly considered in the CCC’s currently adopted SLR guidance document (CCC, 2024).

Sea-Level Projection Tool
Web-based tools have been developed to automate the computation of SLR scenarios and provide consistency with repeatable analytical results. NASA’s “Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool,” available on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) website (https://sealevel.nasa.gov/task force scenario tool), is one such tool.

The Interagency Task Force is composed of representatives from NASA, NOAA, EPA, United States Geological Survey (USGS), and USACOE with partners in academia. The tool provides the most recent sea level rise scenarios and supporting information in Sweet et al. (2002), along with updated information from IPCC (2023). However, unlike the IPCC (2023), Sweet et al. (2022) only focused on coastlines of the United States and its territories, out to the year 2150. The information in Sweet et al. (2022) is aimed at informing coastal communities and others about current and future sea level rise and their effects to assist with coastal planning.

A goal of Sweet et al. (2022) is to study the complete range of conceivable amounts of future global sea level rise, not just those rise amounts considered “likely.” Assessing the “unlikely but possible” SLR response can be critical to help constrain certain risk planning exercises including mission critical; major infrastructure upgrades that have very long operational life cycles or those that are highly vulnerable, etc. For Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL), these exercises depend on potential physical changes in the major ice sheets where possible rapid Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 23
collapses would contribute to very large amounts of future sea level rise. As such, Sweet et al. (2022) includes a set of GMSL scenarios that span the plausible range of SLR DQGDUHGHÞQHGE\DWDUJHWYDOXHRIULVHLQDQGÞYHWDUJHWYDOXHVRI SLR are used WRGLIIHUHQWLDWHWKHÞYH VFHQDULRV7KHVHYDOXHV DUHGHÞQHG DV /RZ
IW
P of SLR);
Intermediate-Low (1.6 ft; 0.5 m of SLR); Intermediate (3.3 ft; 1.0 m of SLR), Intermediate-High (4.9 ft; 1.5 m of SLR), and High (6.6 ft; 2.0 m of SLR). To generate these VFHQDULRV6ZHHWHWDO

ÞOWHUVWKHHQVHPEOHRUVHWRISURMHFWLRQVLQ,3&&

WKDW
DUH WLHG WR VSHFLÞF VKDUHG VRFLHWDO SDWKZD\V
663V
ZKLFK DSSHDU WR ZHDYH VRFLDO
engineering and science, in order to identify subsets of pathways that are consistent with the aforementioned scenario target values in 2100. Similar to IPCC (2021), these scenarios are regionalized and provided at individual tide gauge locations, with the median, 17th, and 83rd percentile values included for each scenario at each region and location. ,3&&

SURYLGHV DQ DGGLWLRQDO qORZ FRQÞGHQFHr UDQJH RI future SLR, intended to represent the potential contribution from uncertain physical processes under high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and their influences on the Greenland Ice Sheet and $QWDUFWLF,FH6KHHWV
*,6DQG$,6
([DPSOHVRIqORZFRQÞGHQFHrSURFHVVHVLQFOXGHUDSLG and unexpected disintegration of marine ice shelves and the abrupt, widespread onset of Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) and Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI) around Antarctica, along with sooner-than-anticipated changes in the surface mass balance and dynamical ice loss from Greenland.
3URGXFWLRQRIWKH qORZFRQÞGHQFHr UDQJHLQYROYHGLFHVKHHWSURMHFWLRQVEDVHGRQERWK a structured judgement (SE) study and an AIS model that includes MICI. These predictions were incorporated into the projection framework along with projections of the other SURFHVVHV FDXVLQJ 6/5 q/RZ FRQÞGHQFHr SURMHFWLRQV ZHUH RQO\ SURGXFHG IRU WZR greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: SSP1-2.6 (low emissions) and SSP5-8.5 (high emissions) due to the limited availability of literature sources representing these processes and a lack of consensus across them. For the high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, the DGGLWLRQRIqORZFRQÞGHQFHrSURMHFWLRQVUHVXOWHGLQPXFKODUJHUFKDQJHVZKHQFRPSDUHGWR WKHDGGLWLRQWRWKHORZJUHHQKRXVHJDVHPLVVLRQVVFHQDULRVXJJHVWLQJWKDWqORZFRQÞGHQFHr processes are likely to play a more import role during extreme climate change and greater warming.

There are several reasons the contributions from MISI, MICI, and Greenlandic surface mass EDODQFHDQGG\QDPLFDOLFHORVVZHUHRQO\LQFOXGHGLQWKHqORZFRQÞGHQFHr UDQJH7KHVH include the following:
x Limited agreement among models on whether these processes will occur in the future. x Limited evidence available to constrain these processes within the models. x The amount of warming necessary to trigger the relevant physical processes is unknown.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 24
x It is unknown how quickly ice sheets will respond if triggered. x The possibility of negative feedbacks affecting or even limiting ice mass loss and resultant sea level rise if triggered.
,Q 6ZHHW HW DO

WKH qORZ FRQÞGHQFHr SURFHVVHV FRQWULEXWH VLJQLÞFDQWO\ WR WKH Intermediate, Intermediate-High, and High scenarios. Additionally, assuming high emissions and warming, the range between these three scenarios is most reflective of the relative importance and possible contributions of these processes to future sea level.

Sweet et al. (2022) includes observation-based extrapolations, or sea level rise “trajectories” for global sea level and for eleven coastal regions of the United States and its territories.

These extrapolations are estimates of relative sea level rise out to 2050, developed from DQDO\]LQJ UHJLRQDOVHWVRIWLGHJDXJHGDWDIROORZLQJWKHÞOWHULQJRIVRPHHIIHFWVRIQDWXUDO variability, such as large-scale natural cycles including El Niño -Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles. Satellite altimeter measurements of sea level were also included in the global sea level rise extrapolation.

The “Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool” provides observation-based extrapolations of individual tide gauges not found in Sweet et al. (2022). These extrapolations can be viewed as future sea levels resulting from the current and accelerated trends over the previous 50 years. For the US coastlines, the tool produces similar regional- and model-based SLR WUDMHFWRULHVWKURXJKLQFUHDVLQJFRQÞGHQFHLQWKHQHDU-term trajectory. However, on the local level, the tool sometimes produces substantial differences between the extUDSRODWLRQV DQG WKH ÞYH *06/ VFHQDULRV GLVFXVVHG LQ 6ZHHW HW DO
7KHVH
disagreements point to the influence of unresolved local variability impacting the extrapolation or to a local process that cannot be correctly captured in the model-based scenarios. Thus, at the local level, the reliability of the tool to predict future SLR resulting from the GMSL scenarios is diminished.

The Clintel Foundation ([Clintel], 2023) provides a critique of IPCC AR6, particularly parts of the Working Group I and Working Group II reports. The review was conducted by an international group of scientists and experts, who, in general, have signed the “World Climate Declaration of Clintel” and its central message “there is no climate emergency.” Some members were expert reviewers of the IPCC reports and commented on drafts of the report.

Clintel (2023) documents biases in almost every chapter of IPCC AR6 reviewed.

On the topic of accelerated SLR, Clintel (2023) states that the IPCC’s accelerating sea level rise, “seems to rely on ‘hybrid reconstructions’ that combine” datasets from tide gauges and satellite records and often include modeled data. Tide gauges directly measure local sea surface height whereas satellite telemetry calculations measure the entirely disparate Eustatic Sea Level (ESL). On average, tide gauges around the world indicate a long-term SLR of approximately 1.7 mm/yr. Conversely, satellite records beginning in 1993 show twice that rate, roughly 3.4 mm/yr.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 25
Sea level has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age in approximately 1650 A.D, when glaciers and ice sheets resumed melting and released water into the oceans. The recent further acceleration of SLR asserted in IPCC AR6 is generally coincident with the change in the early 1990s from pure tide gauge data to satellite data. Part of the acceleration may be an artifact due to the change in methodology given the uncertainties in the calibration of the satellite results and discrepancies with synchronously recording tide gauges (Clintel, 2023).

According to Clintel (2023), 20th century global sea level rose approximately 20 cm at a rate, according to NOAA, of 1.7 mm/yr (±0.4 mm). Other estimates and reconstructions suggest rates slightly less than 2.0 mm/yr. Tide gauges measuring local Relative Sea Level (RSL), or the height of the sea surface relative to the land at the tide gauge locations, form the basis of NOAA’s rate. RSL combines SLR and the local Vertical Land Motion (VLM). In order to quantify how much of RSL is actual rise in the height of the sea surface, known as Absolute Sea Level (ASL) and not land subsidence, tide gauges must be physically attached to “Continuously Operating Reference Stations” (“CORS”), a system referred to as “Continuous Global Positioning System at Tide Gauges” (“CGPS@TG”). Averaging global tide gauge UHFRUGVWRGHWHUPLQHDJOREDOÞJXUHIRU6/5LVQRWSRVVLEOHXQOHVVWKHVH UHFRUGVKDYHDOO been corrected for VLM, which will not be possible until there are an adequate number of widespread CGPS@TG stations.
1$6$XVHVUHPRWHO\VHQVHGVDWHOOLWHWHOHPHWU\IRUUHFRUGLQJ*06/1$6$ÞQGVWKHYDULDWLRQ in their GMSL metric rising at a rate of 3.4 mm/yr since 1993. However, GMSL is not a measurement of sea surface height but rather the ESL, which can be thought of as the level if all of the water in the oceans were contained in a simple basin. This is important because ocean levels or heights are not homogenous between basins. For instance, sea level on the 3DFLÞF2FHDQVLGHRIWKH3DQDPD&DQDOLVFPKLJKHUWhan on the Atlantic side (Clintel, 2023).
&OLQWHO

GHVFULEHV UHFRQVWUXFWLRQVRIWKHXQFRUUHFWHGJOREDOWLGHJDXJHGDWDE\ÞYH sea level research groups. One group found no evidence of acceleration and the other four groups found slight acceleration over the 20th century with estimates of SLR acceleration ranging from 0.002 to 0.02 mm/yr2
.
0HDQVHDOHYHOVDWHDFKWLGHJDXJHORFDWLRQFDQEHLGHQWLÞHGE\DYHUDJLQJWKHWZRGDLO\KLJK and low tides. Figure 6 shows the relative sea level trend for La Jolla, California (tide gauge station 9410230) between 1924 and 2024. The relative sea level data is directly measured, not remotely sensed and calculated. Although the sea level readings in Figure 6 are highly variable, a linear trend showing no acceleration over the aforementioned time frame is clearly visible. Similar linear sea level trends, unaffected by acceleration, are found across the world. 7KLVFRXQWHUVWKH,3&&pV UHSRUWLQJWKDWqD UREXVWDFFHOHUDWLRQ KLJKFRQÞGHQFH
RI*06/
rise” occurred during the 20th century.

Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 26
Figure 6 – Relative Sea Level Trend at the La Jolla Tide Gauge – Station 9410230 between 1924 and 2024 (Source: NOAA’s “Tides & Currents” website [https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/])
Clintel (2023) also examines relative sea level data from tide gauges for the capitals of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. These countries were totally or partly covered by the European Ice Sheet 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, and as a result of ice loss, since that time, this region experiences isostatic rebound of several millimeters per year. This rise in VLM overshadows the rate of slow global sea level rise, producing a net sea level fall.

Clintel (2023) compares the tide gauge data for these capital cities to sea level rise forecasts produced by the “IPCC AR6 Sea Level Rise Projection Tool.” This tool is similar to that produced by the Interagency Task Force. However, it provides the user with consensus future SLR SURMHFWLRQVDFURVVWKHJOREHDQGUDWKHUWKDQSUHGLFWLQJIXWXUH6/5UHODWLYHWRWKHÞYH greenhouse gas emission target values in the Interagency Task Force tool, the IPCC AR6 tool correlates future SLR to a framework of seven SSPs: SSP1 1.0 (Very Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions); SSP 1-2.6 (Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions), SSP2-4.5 (Intermediate Greenhouse Gas Emissions); SSP3-7.0 (High Greenhouse Gas Emissions); SSP5-8.5 (Very +LJK *UHHQKRXVH *DV (PLVVLRQV

663 /RZ &RQÞGHQFH
/ow Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; and SSP5-/RZ&RQÞGHQFH
9HU\+LJK*UHHQKRXVH*DV(PLVVLRQV

Clintel’s comparison reveals a reversal in SLR trends for these cities beginning in 2020. As such, Clintel concludes that the IPCC’s modeled trend beyond 2020 visually appears unrealistic and suggests that the modeled data was not tested appropriately against the current observation-based data, even though the modeled sea level projections for different 663VFHQDULRVDUHFDOFXODWHGUHODWLYHWRDEDVHOLQHGHÞQHGE\REVHUYDWLRQVPDGHEHWZHHQ 1995 and 2014 for each tide gauge station.

Clintel (2023) states that the IPCC considers most if not all warming since 1850 is anthropogenic in origin. Thus, downgrading the effects of natural climate variability to nearly zero. Clintel (2023) suggests that if the IPCC’s opinion regarding man-made global warming is fact, there should have been evidence of sea level trend reversals in the tide gauge data Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 27
for the aforementioned capital cities prior to 2020. In other words, had the IPCC modelers modeled their sea level data from an earlier date (e.g. 1950), which would have been entirely possible, the conflict between the observation-based and modeled data would have LPPHGLDWHO\EHHQLGHQWLÞHGDQGWKHPRGHOFRXOGKDYHEHHQLPSURYHG Clintel (2023) also reports that a study of several modeled sea level data predicts future major geoid changes in the regions around Greenland resulting from substantial reduction of the GIS. A reduction of the GIS reduces the land mass and shifts the geoid closer to the Earth’s center. Thus, if the input data for future air temperature and precipitation over Greenland is erroneous or unrealistic, the IPCC’s sea level modeling would likewise be inaccurate and impractical.

In summary, there remains opposing viewpoints on whether global climate since 1850 has accelerated SLR and the extent to which sea levels, influenced by greenhouse gas emissions, will correspondingly adjust in the future. However, what is clearer is that models can be manipulated to predict a desired outcome depending on the assumptions used in the modeling.

SEA LEVEL RISE AND SITE-SPECIFIC COASTAL BLUFF RETREAT

In November 2024, the CCC adopted their latest SLR policy guidance update (CCC, 2024) for consistency with the State of California’s sea level rise guidance prepared by the CSLRSTF et al. (2024), to SURYLGHDGGLWLRQDOGHWDLOVSHFLÞFWRWKH&RDVWDO$FWDQGWRDGGUHVV other developments that have occurred since the CCC published their 2018 sea level rise guidance. According to CCC (2024), the key updates provided therein include:
x SLR scenarios to reflect 1) more certainty regarding the near-term magnitudes of SLR, as compared to the 2018 numbers, and 2) the current understanding of the potential timing of worst-case Antarctica ice sheet melt, and the associated slight slowing of the possible worst-case SLR scenario.
x Discussion of State Assembly Bill SB272, which requires local governments to develop SLR adaption plans as part of new or updated Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) by January 1, 2034. The new information in CCC (2024) is intended to comply with the legislation’s requirement for the CCC to establish guidelines by December 31, 2024 for the preparation of those plans.
x The integration of environmental justice principles, as outlined in the CCC’s “Environmental Justice Policy,” including additional information on the consequences of SLR to environmental justice communities, the importance of meaningful engagement, and how to consider and include environmental justice communities in the planning and permitting process, and equitable adaptation strategies. This work was supported by eight external subject matter experts in SLR science and Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 28
environmental justice, who acted as project advisors. These advisors were consulted at the beginning of and throughout the process to ensure the guidelines reflect the priorities of environmental justice communities (i.e., low-income communities, communities of color, and other historically marginalized communities that have been disproportionately burdened by or less able to prevent, respond to, and recover from, adverse environmental impacts and discriminatory land use practices”).

CCC (2024) states that the document is meant to serve as an advisory and not regulations or legal standards of review for the actions that the CCC or local governments may take under the Coastal Act. However, based our past work experience, the CCC essentially considers their SLR guidance documents policy for coastal development permits (CDPs), subject to CCC review, under the guise that the information presented therein is based on the “best available science.”
CCC (2024) includes three SLR scenarios for use in technical analyses of new coastal development. These include an “Intermediate Scenario,” an “Intermediate-High Scenario,” and a “High Scenario.” The “Intermediate Scenario” is meant for coastal development that would have limited consequences or greater adaptability to SLR (i.e., low risk aversion).

These include ancillary development or public access amenities. The “Intermediate-High Scenario” is intended for coastal development, such as most residential and commercial structures, that would suffer greater damages or have lower adaptability to SLR (i.e., medium-high risk aversion). Lastly, the “High Scenario” is reserved for coastal development with little to no adaptability to SLR, and ZRXOGEHLUUHYHUVLEO\GHVWUR\HGRUVLJQLÞFDQWO\FRVWO\ to repair, or would have considerable public health, public safety, or environmental impacts should that level of SLR occur. This includes most critical infrastructure. $VSUHYLRXVO\VWDWHG&&&

LVDOLJQHGZLWKWKHÞQGLQJVDQGFRQFOXVLRQs reported in CSLRSTF et al.

ZKLFKSURYLGHVWKHVDPHÞYH6/5VFHQDULRVGLVFXVVHGLQ6ZHHW et al. (2022) with further reductions to reflect regional and local influences of SLR in California.

SLR scenarios are provided for the entire California coast, reflecting the statewide average VLM, and for each of the 14 tide gauge locations considering local VLM.

CSLRSTF et al. (2024) compares each future SLR scenario to the future climate projections reported in IPCC AR6 (IPCC, 2021) to describe the likelihood of each scenario. CSLRSTF et al. (2024) also provides information about the likelihood each scenario of occurring in the year 2100 under various amounts of plausible future warming, in addition to assumed rapid ice sheet disintegration processes.

CSLRSTF et al. (2024) explains that global surface temperatures are on course to reach

3.0 degrees Celsius (3°C) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, assuming current rates of greenhouse gas emission-driven warming. Based on the IPCC AR6 warming level-based global mean sea level projections, exceedance probabilities for the “Intermediate Scenario,” the “Intermediate-High Scenario,” and the “High Scenario” are reported as 5 percent,

0.1 percent, and less than 0.1 percent, respectively
Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 29
Figure 7, adopted from Table F-13 of CCC (2024), provides the future SLR projections for the La Jolla tide (nearest) gauge station. As shown therein, SLR is projected to be 3.1 feet,

4.8 feet, and 6.6 feet above the baseline year 2000 sea level in the year 2100 (i.e., the end of the project design life) for the Intermediate, Intermediate-High, and High Scenarios, respectively.

Figure 7 (from Table F-13. “Sea Level Scenarios for La Jolla” [CCC, 2024]): Future SLR Projections for the La Jolla Tide Gauge Station.

GSI compared the future SLR projections provided in CCC (2024) for the La Jolla tide gauge station with those provided by NASA’s “Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool.” Figure 8 Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 30
presents the SLR projections for the La Jolla tide gauge (station 9410230) using the “Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool.” As shown therein, the future SLR projections for the “Intermediate,” “Intermediate-High,” and “High” scenarios for the La Jolla tide gauge station are consistent with those provided in CCC (2024).

A review of the historical sea level trend for the La Jolla tide gauge station (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station. shtml?id=9410230), shown in Figure 6, shows that the local historical trend closely aligns with the trajectories of the “Low” and “Intermediate-Low” SLR scenarios shown in Figure 8.

Given this similarity, the equivocality of climate research discussed previously, the high likelihood that the State of California and the City of Solana Beach will periodically implement measures to preserve beach recreation resources (i.e., beach nourishment), as they do today, the nearby elevated shore platform (i.e., Table Tops Reef) that dissipates wave energy and reduces the frequency of marine erosion acting upon the adjacent coastal bluff, and the location of the proposed building addition on the eastern side of the subject property, it is GSI’s opinion that the use of the SLR projection for the year 2100, reported in Table F-13 of CCC (2024) for the “Intermediate Scenario” (i.e., 3.1 feet above the baseline year 2000 sea level) is most appropriate for use in determining the site-VSHFLÞFEOXIIUHWUHDWDWWKHHQGRIWKH proposed development’s 75-year design life.

Figure 8 – Sea Level Rise at the La Jolla Tide Gauge (Station 9410230) for Different Sea Level Scenarios (Source: NASA’s “Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool” website [https://sealevel.nasa.gov/task-force-scenario-tool/]). All values are relative to the baseline year of 2000.

While the curve for the Intermediate Scenario in Figure 8 appears more asymptotic near the year 2100 (i.e., end of the proposed project design life), there are three major breaks in the SLR trajectory for this scenario that align in a curvilinear fashion over the next 75 years: from present day to 2069; from 2070 to 2083; and from 2084 to 2100. These three curvilinear portions are further explained, later in the text.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 31

HISTORIC COASTAL-BLUFF RETREAT
Most of San Diego County’s coastline has experienced a measurable amount of erosion in the last 75 years, with more rapid erosion occurring during periods of heavy storm surf (Kuhn and Shepard, 1984). In northern Solana Beach, waves erode the near-vertical sea cliff portion of the coastal bluff generally by percussion hammering on discontinuities (i.e., joints and faults) in the exposed Torrey Sandstone and Delmar Formation. These planes of structural weakness in the bedrock units eventually widen to form sea caves. Once the roof of a sea cave can no longer support the overlying bluff materials, the roof collapses, sometimes causing failures in the lower to middle portions of the upper-bluff slope, rarely triggering failures through the entire upper-bluff slope.

The upper-bluff slopes, which often support little or no vegetation, are subject to wave spray and splash, sometimes causing saturation of the outer layer and subsequent sloughing of over-steepened slopes. Wind, rain, irrigation, and uncontrolled surface runoff contribute to the subaerial erosion of the upper-bluff slope, especially where friable sands are exposed.

Improvements located near the bluff edge can also concentrate surface runoff onto the bluff slope, and can exacerbate subaerial erosion and upper-bluff instability.

Numerous studies have been undertaken to analyze retreat along the Solana Beach coastal bluffs. However, the most in-depth study to date consists of a 1999 assessment by Benumof and Griggs (1999). This study presents erosion rates for coastal bluffs in different sections of the San Diego County coastline. The erosion rates published by these researchers were assembled by analyzing a combination of factors including overall rock mass strengths obtained through Schimdt Hammer testing; visual assessments of joint spacing and width; earth material weathering and fatigue; groundwater seepage; and wave impact at the base of the sea cliffs. These data were compared to the bluff edge locations observed in soft-copy photogrammetric images of the coast for the years 1932, 1949, 1952, 1956, and 1994, as well as more recent bluff edge locations surveyed with global positioning instruments.

For the Solana Beach coast section, Benumof and Griggs (1999) arrived at a mean historical recession rate of 8.24 centimeters/year (cm/yr) or approximately 0.27 feet/year, with a standard deviation of 2.37 cm/yr (0.08 ft/yr). Benumof and Griggs (1999) also provided alongshore plots quantifying the amount of coastal bluff erosion within their Solana Beach study area. 7KHLUÞQGLQJVLQGLFDWHGretreat rates varying between approximately 2 and 14 cm/yr (approximately 0.07 and 0.46 ft/yr).

Hapke and Reid (2007) provided historical rates of coastal bluff retreat along much of the California coast. The study extended from the border between California and Oregon to San Diego Harbor. These researchers determined a range of rates varying between 0.39 and

0.82 ft/yr for the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property. However, the alongshore plots of historical bluff retreat in Hapke and Reid (2007) only provide generalized reference points for measuring distances along regional stretches of coastline. Owing to the ambiguities associated with the precise locating of a particular coastal site on these plots, the user is forced to arrive at a range of historical bluff retreat rates for the target location, and the end points of this range may either under- or over-predict the actual rate. In addition, Hapke and Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 32
Reid (2007) explicitly report a retreat rate uncertainty of 0.2 meters/year (m/yr) or 0.66 ft/yr.

Thus, the uncertainty is on the same order of magnitude as the range of historical rates they concluded for the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property. In our opinion the potential errors associated with pinpointing the target site location and the high retreat rate uncertainty do not make Hapke and Reid (2007) a reliable source for determining the retreat rate of the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property.

USACOE (2015) studied the coastal bluffs of Encinitas and Solana Beach between the southern end of Batiquitos Lagoon to the southern boundary of Solana Beach.

USACOE (2015) included the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property into Reach 8 of the study area. Reach 8 extended from Table Tops Reef (south Cardiff) to Fletcher Cove.

USACOE (2015) concluded erosion rates of 0.4 to 1.2 ft/yr both for the near vertical sea cliff portions of the coastal bluffs and the bluff tops in Reach 8. The USACOE indicated that Table Tops Reef has provided a modest amount of protection against marine erosion for the coastal bluffs located immediate south of this fault-controlled, elevated shore platform. While the USACOE (2015) retreat rates appear relatively high, nearly twice to more than 4 times the average historical rate Benumof and Griggs (1999) concluded for their Solana Beach study area, based on our communication with a technical researcher that assisted with the USACOE (2015) study, the retreat rates were exaggerated for the purpose of securing federal funding for shoreline erosion mitigation.

Limber et al. (2018) developed a one-dimensional multimodel ensemble to forecast southern California coastal bluff retreat along 2,117 transects, between the years 2010 and 2100, under four SLR scenarios (0.5 m, 0.93 m, 1.5 m, and 2.0 m above sea level in the baseline year 2000). For the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property, Limber et al. (2018) predicted 11 to 20 m of retreat for the 0.5, 0.93, and 1.5 m SLR scenarios and 21 to 50 m of retreat for the 2.0 m SLR scenario. These estimated retreat distances are roughly 1.5 to 7 times greater than the average historical trend Benumof and Griggs concluded for their Solana Beach study area. Limber et al. (2018) point out that the models were not validated because: 1) all available observational data were used for calibration; 2) the anthropogenic PRGLÞFDWLRQV to the southern California coastline (i.e., coastal development and armoring) during the calibration period; 3) the exclusion of future human impacts; and 4) the high uncertainty (on the order of 1 to 2.3 m/yr depending on the SLR scenario [uncertainty was highest for the 2.0 m SLR scenario]) mostly originating from the inherent uncertainty in the historical data sources used to assign the historical retreat rates.

In order to estimate the historical site-VSHFLÞFFRDVWDOEOXIIUHWUHDWUDWHZKLFKLVQHFHVVDU\ to predict the future rate of retreat, GSI compared the location of the coastal bluff edge in 1932 stereoscopic aerial photographs (Fairchild Aerial Surveys, 1932) to the current bluff edge location shown on Plate 1. Figure 9 (“1932 Bluff Edge Location”) shows the relationship between the 1932 coastal bluff edge location and the boundaries of the subject property.

Measurements taken between the 1932 coastal bluff edge location and the location of the subject property’s northeastern property line suggest that the coastal bluff edge has retreated between approximately 10½ and 25 feet over a 93-year period (1932-2025), producing historical retreat rates of roughly 0.11 to 0.27 ft/yr and an average historical retreat rate of approximately 0.20 ft/yr. The maximum retreat rate over the 93-year period matches the average rate Benumof and Griggs (1999) concluded for their Solana Beach study area.

Item K.2
W.O. DATE: SCALE: 7826-A1-SC 6/25 1" = 50'
Figure 9
1932 BLUFF EDGE

LOCATION

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
This document or efile is not a part of the Construction Documents and should not be relied upon as being an
accurate depiction of design.

W. Circle Drive Existing Residential
Structure
Ocean Street
Base Photograph From: Fairchild Aerial Surveys (1932)
SITE
Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 34

FUTURE BLUFF RETREAT SUMMARY
6LPSOLÞHG1XPHULFDO0RGHORI6KRUHOLQH(YROXWLRQ
7KHVLPSOLÞHGQXPHULFDOPRGHOVGHYHORSHGE\$VKWRQHWDO
DQG<RXQJ et al. (2014)
are currently considered “state-of-the-art” tools for assessing the long-term retreat of coastal EOXIIVZLWKWKHDGGHGHIIHFWVRI6/57KHVHVLPSOLÞHGPRGHOVEXLOd upon and generally follow the core principles of the “Soft Cliff and Platform Erosion” (SCAPE) developed by Walkden and Hall (2005) and Walkden and Dickson (2008). SCAPE consists of a two-dimensional/quasi three-dimensional modeling tool used to replicate the geomorphic evolution of eroding soft rock shorelines (including platform, beach, waves, tides, cliff, and engineering interventions) over timescales of years to millennia.

Unlike the SCAPE model, which uses randomly determined wave inputs, fluctuating tidal F\FOHV DQG KHWHURJHQRXV HURVLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSVWKH VLPSOLÞHG QXPHULFDO PRGHOV ÞWWKHVH parameters into a “zone” of wave -induced erosion concentrated around sea level and with predetermined vertical range, and erosive potential. In other words, the vertical range of erosion is representative of both the tidal range and the varying heights of incoming waves. :LWKLQWKHWLGDOO\DYHUDJHGVXUI]RQHWKHEHGURFNSURÞOHLV eroded at a rate proportional to its slope. Points above the zone of active marine erosion stay landward of the top of the wave-FXWSODWIRUPWKXVPDLQWDLQLQJDQDUELWUDULO\YHUWLFDOFOLII7KHEHGURFNVKRUHSURÞOH located below the zone of wave attacNGRHVQRWFKDQJHZLWKLQWKHPRGHOFRQÞJXUDWLRQ DQG
therefore, are representations of abandoned relict slopes. The model is carried out by raising sea level at a constant rate that is varied between simulations. 7KHVLPSOLÞHGPRGHOSURGXFHVDG\QDPLFHTXLOLEULXPSURÞOHRIDQHURGHGVKRUHOLQHVLPLODU to the SCAPE model, whereby the erosion rate is a function of the velocity of cliff retreat. 0RUHVSHFLÞFDOO\WKHPRGHOLQLWLDOO\VKRZVDGLUHFWUHODWLRQVKLSEHWween erosion and SLR, but for higher rates of SLR, the erosion rates begin to diminish as the equilibrium erosion SURÞOHVWHHSHQV
7KHVLPSOLÞHGQXPHULFDOPRGHOHTXDWLRQLVGHÞQHGDV

ܴଶ = ܴଵ ൬
ܵଶ
ܵଵ
൰
௠
Where:
ܴଶ = Future retreat rate
ܴଵ = Historical retreat rate
ܵଵ = Historical rate of sea level rise
ܵଶ = Future rate of sea level rise
݉ =Site-VSHFLÞFUHVSRQVHSDUDPHWHr
Item K.2
Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 35
According to Ashton, et al. (2011), the parameter “m” is dependent on the feedbacks EHWZHHQ WKH VKRUH SURÞOH JHRPHWU\ DQG HURVLRQ $Q LQVWDQW RU OLQHDU IHHGEDFN P

represents an eroding shoreline where the erosion rate and SLR rate increase linearly (see Figure 10 [Figure 12 of Young et al., 2014]). Potential examples of eroding shorelines exhibiting an instant response are dominated by sediment flux gradients and include coasts with bluffs and cliffs with high sediment yields. A negative feedback or nonlinear system (0<m<1) includes eroding shorelines with negative feedbacks, such as high earth material strengths or a protective beach that reduces erosion. Potential examples of negative feedback systems are shorelines dominated by wave-driven erosion, such as rocky shore platforms and coastal bluffs adjacent to low volume beaches. A no feedback system (m=0) includes eroding shorelines where the magnitude of erosion is independent of SLR. Potential examples of no feedback systems include shorelines comprised of hard rock without shore platforms, shorelines dominated by bioerosion, or shorelines subjected to low wave energy.

Lastly, an inverse feedback system (m<1) represents a shoreline where the erosion rates could decrease as SLR rates increase. Potential environments include shorelines subjected to bioerosion and reflective coastal bluffs.

Figure 10 (Figure 12 of Young et al. [2014]) - Sea Level Rise (meters) and Cliff Retreat (meters).

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 36
Model Limitations

Ashton, et al.

LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH VLPSOLÞHG QXPHULFDO PRGHO LV OLPLWHG WR HYDOXDWLQJ shoreline erosion along rocky coasts with low volume beaches and coastal bluffs that do not FRQWULEXWHVLJQLÞFDQWEHDFKDFFUHWLQJVHGLPHQW0RUHRYHUWKHVHUHVHDUFKHUVVWDWHWKDt the VLPSOLÞHG QXPHULFDO PRGHO LV EHVW VXLWHG IRU HYDOXDWLQJ VKRUHOLQH HURVLRQ RYHU ORQJ timescales, such as millennia, and not appropriate for shorter time periods under the purview of most coastal management applications. Lastly, the siPSOLÞHGQXPHULFDOPRGHOGRHVQRW consider longshore sediment transport, which can either build or decay protective beaches.

Coastal Bluff Lithology
The lithology of the adjacent coastal bluff and the proximity of Table Tops Reef likely provide the greatest moderating effect on marine erosion. As shown on Plate 2, wave attack will still be focused on the more resistant Torrey Sandstone rather than the overlying, more erodible old paralic deposits over the 75-year design life of the currently proposed additional residential development at the subject property, even during astronomical high tides. A review of Figures 6(a) and 6(b) in Benumof and Griggs (1999) indicates that the Torrey Sandstone outcropping on coastal bluffs within their Solana Beach study area (appropriate for the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property) exhibited the fourth highest mean Schmidt Hammer rebound values of the nine studied sections of San Diego County coastal bluffs.

Presence of a Protective Beach and Shore Platform
The coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property is fronted by a fault-controlled, elevated shore platform, known as Table Tops Reef. This resistant platform protects the base of the coastal bluff from marine erosion by dissipating in-coming wave energy.

Most of the time, the shoreline is wider than 20 feet, similar to a conditionally decoupled SURÞOHPRGHO
&'30
FXUYH%%

VHH)LJXUH10). Curve BB:0, which is below the m = 0.5

RU
FXUYHRIWKHVLPSOLÞHGQXPHULFDOHTXDWLRQDQGFORVHUWRP = 0, near the 2 meter SLR endpoint (when the design “Intermediate Scenario” of 3.1 feet of SLR will have occurred in the year 2100 [CSLRSTF et al., 2024; CCC, 2024]). Given the proximity to the BB:0 (m = 0) line and the aforementioned geologic and bathymetric factors that limit marine-induced bluff erosion, we judge that m = 0.3333 (or ᪞) appears appropriate for the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property.

The calculated long-WHUP UDWH RI IXWXUH EOXII UHWUHDW XVLQJ WKH VLPSOLÞHG QXPHULFDO PRGHO equation is presented below, based on the aforementioned three curvilinear sections and:

1. The historical retreat rate from our site-VSHFLÞFUHYLHZ- 0.27 ft/yr = R1 Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 37

2. The average SLR rate over 100 years (1924 to 2024), based on NOAA (Scripps Pier, La Jolla1) - 2.02 mm/yr (0.0067 ft/yr) = S1

3. Future SLR rate (2100), under the Intermediate Scenario2 - 3.1 ft/75 yrs or

0.041 ft/yr=S2

4. m = ᪞
GSI’s assignment of the value for the exponent “m” is reasonable based on the response of the onsite coastal bluff to increased rates of SLR would lie somewhere between the instant response (m = 1) and no feedback (m = 0) systems discussed in Ashton, et al. (2011), and is likely closer to zero.

GSI has reasonably assumed SLR will mimic the historical bluff retreat rate for the next 44 years (through 2069). We have used 0.27 ft/yr for this time interval. The erosion rate should marginally increase for the following 14 years (2070-2083). Thus, we have reasonably added ᪞ of the change in erosion rate between the initial 44 years (2025-

DQGWKHÞQDO
years of the project design life (2084-2100). During the more asymptotic Intermediate Scenario SLR) trend (2084-2100), the bluff retreat rate should be closer to the site-VSHFLÞF upper-bound bluff retreat rate for this time interval even though only the cemented Torrey Sandstone in the basal portion of the coastal bluff might receive a higher frequency of waveimpact from SLR. However, for conservatism, we used the rate obtained for the end range of the project design life (2084-
REWDLQHGIURPWKHqVLPSOLÞHGQXPHULFDOPHWKRGr

ft/yr)
The future, site-VSHFLÞFEOXIIedge retreat distance is estimated below using WKHqVLPSOLÞHG numerical method”:

In the year 2100, under the Intermediate Scenario (5 % Probability of exceedance), R2 = R1 (S2/S1)m
R2 = (0.27 ft/yr) (0.041 ft/yr/[ 0.0067 ft/yr ])᪞
R2 = (0.27) (6.12)᪞
R2 = (0.27) (1.83) =0.49 ft/yr in the year 2100.

Based on the above, the retreat rate will change from 0.27 to 0.49 ft/yr, and the difference between the 75-year commencement and the end of the project design life, Ŏ 0.34 ft/yr, from 2070 to 2083.
1 NOAA, 2025 (La Jolla gauge no. 9410230 [https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/]) 2 CCC, 2024 (Projected SLR [in feet]: La Jolla)
Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 38

FUTURE BLUFF RETREAT BASED ON SLR CURVE INCREMENTS

APPLICABLE DATES
BLUFF

RETREAT RATE
(FT/YR)

DURATION
(YEARS)

BLUFF RETREAT

DISTANCE
(FEET)
2025-2069 (0.27 ft/yr) current SLR rate 0.27 44 11.9
2070-2083 (0.27 ft/yr + ᪞[Ŏ] = (0.27 ft/yr +᪞[0.22 ft/yr]=

0.34 ft/yr) increase in SLR rate 0.34 14 4.8
2084-2100 (Calculated SLR rate in 2100 = 0.49 ft/yr) 0.49 17 8.3 Subtotal 75 25.0
As shown above, the onsite coastal bluff may experience approximately 25 feet of retreat over the 75-year design life of the proposed additional residential development, with a future SLR of 3.1 feet. Plate 1 shows the estimated location of the coastal bluff edge in the year 2100. 3ODWHVKRZVK\SRWKHVL]HGEOXIISURÞOHLQWKH\HDU

LABORATORY TESTING
General
Laboratory tests were performed on relatively undisturbed and representative bulk samples of the onsite soils encountered in the borings, in order to evaluate their engineering properties. The test procedures used, and results obtained are summarized below. &ODVVLÞFDWLRQ
6RLOVZHUHFODVVLÞHGYLVXDOO\DFFRUGLQJWRWKH8QLÞHG6RLOV&ODVVLÞFDWLRQ6\VWHP developed by Sowers and Sowers (1979). 7KHVRLO FODVVLÞFDWLRQV DUHVKRZQ RQWKH%RULQJ /RJV LQ Appendix B.

Field Moisture Content and Density
7KHÞHOGPRLVWXUHFRQWHQWVDQGGU\densities were evaluated for relatively “undisturbed” soil samples obtained from Boring B-1. The dry density was evaluated in general accordance ZLWK$670'

UHSRUWHGLQSRXQGVSHUFXELFIRRW>SFI@
DQGWKHÞHOGPRLVWXUHFRQWHQW
was evaluated as a percentage of the dry weight in general accordance with ASTM D 2216.

Results of these tests are summarized on the log of Boring B-1 in Appendix B.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 39
Expansion Potential
Expansion Index (E.I.) testing was performed on a representative sample of the near-surface, onsite soils. (,WHVWLQJDQGH[SDQVLRQSRWHQWLDOFODVVLÞFDWLRQZHUHFRQGXFWHGin general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The E.I. test result is presented in the following table:

SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT) EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B-1 @ ᪞-5
&
HA-2 @ 0-4½
(Composite)
<5 Very Low
E.I. = 0-20 – Very low expansion potential
E.I. = 21-50 – Low expansion potential;
E.I. = 51-90 – Medium expansion potential
E.I. = 91-130 – High expansion potential
E.I. >130 – Very high (critical) expansion potential
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were evaluated for a representative sample of the near-surface, onsite soils. The test was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 (Method “A”). The test results are summarized in the following table:

SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH
(FT) DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf)

OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
B-1 @ ᪞-5
&
HA-2 @ 0-4½
(Composite)
Dark Brown Silty
SAND 127.1 8.7
Direct Shear Tests
Shear testing was performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples retrieved from Boring B-1 and a remolded, composite sample of the near-surface, onsite soils. Shear testing was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 3080. The test results are presented in the following table and in Appendix D.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 40

SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH
(FT)

PEAK STRENGTH RESIDUAL STRENGTH

COHESION
(psf)

ANGLE OF

INTERNAL

FRICTION
(degrees)

COHESION
(psf)

ANGLE OF

INTERNAL

FRICTION
(degrees)
B-1 @ 5 ft 88 42 12 36
B-1 @ 45 ft 79 40 49 33
B-1 @ 60 931 31 441 23
B-1 @ ᪞-5
&
HA-2 @ 0-4½
(Composite)*
117 36 66 34
* - Sample was remolded to 90% of 127.1 pcf and at optimum moisture content (8.7%) prior to testing.

Soil pH, Saturated Resistivity, Soluble Sulfates and Soluble Chlorides A representative, composite sample of the near-surface, onsite soils was tested for an evaluation of general soil corrosivity and soluble sulfates, and soluble chlorides. Testing was performed in general accordance with California Test Methods (CTMs) 417, 422, and 532 (643). The test results are presented in the following table:

SAMPLE LOCATION AND
DEPTH (FT) pH

SATURATED

RESISTIVITY
(ohm-cm)

SOLUBLE

SULFATES
(% by weight)

SOLUBLE

CHLORIDES
(ppm)
B-1 @ ᪞-5
&
HA-2 @ 0-4½
(Composite)

8.0 2600 0.009 110
Corrosion Summary
The laboratory test results indicate that the tested sample is moderately alkaline with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity; is moderately corrosive to exposed buried metals when moist; presents negligible sulfate exposure to concrete (i.e., Exposure Class S0 per Table 19.3.1.1 of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-14); and has a slightly elevated concentration of soluble chlorides that does not exceed the threshold criteria recognized by California Department of Transportation ([Caltrans], 2021) for designating corrosive sites. GSI does QRW FRQVXOW LQ WKH ÞHOG RI FRUURVLRQ HQJLQHHULQJ Therefore, additional comments and UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVPD\EHREWDLQHGIURPDTXDOLÞHGFRUURVLRQHQJLQHHUEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORI corrosion protection required for the project, as determined by the Project Architect, Civil Engineer, and Structural Engineer. 'XHWRLWVSUR[LPLW\WRWKH3DFLÞF2FHDQWKHSURSRVHG Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 41
development is susceptible to the corrosive effects of sea spray. This should be considered in the selection of the mix design for structural concrete.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
GSI performed quantitative slope stability analyses to evaluate the stability of the adjacent coastal bluff, in consideration of the existing portion of the residential structure and the proposed building addition. The analyses were conducted along Geologic Cross-Section X-X’ (see Plate 2) using the two-dimensional limit equilibrium slope stability analysis software program “GEOSTASE” (version [v.] 4.30.32), developed by Gregory (2023). Geologic Cross-Section X-X’ was selected as the model for the slope stability analyses because it represents the closest horizontal separation between the bluff edge and the existing residential structure, and some of the steepest upper-bluff slope gradients adjacent to the subject property. For a complete discussion of the GEOSTASE v.4.30.32 program, please refer to Appendix E.
*6,DQDO\]HGVORSHVWDELOLW\XVLQJWKH6SHQFHU0HWKRGRI6OLFHVVLQFHLWVDWLVÞHVERWKIRUFH and moment equilibrium of the failure mass. Where other methods neglect interslice normal and shear forces, the Spencer Method of Slices accounts for interslice forces by substitution with an equivalent resultant force acting upon the midpoint of the slices’ base. Thus, it allows for more precise calculations of the Factor-of-Safety (FOS).

The geologic conditions modeled in the slope stability analyses were based on our observations during our mapping and subsurface exploration programs. The soil strengths applied to the geologic units, considered in the slope stability analyses, were based on the results of the direct shear tests performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the onsite soils, retrieved from Boring B-1, as well as our experience and professional judgement. The results of the direct shear tests are summarized in the “Laboratory Testing” section of this report and in Appendix D. Anisotropic soil strengths were applied to both subunits of the Quaternary old paralic deposits and the Torrey Sandstone and Delmar Formation. Isotropic soils strengths were assigned to the remaining geologic units considered in the analyses.

The soil strength parameters included in the analyses are summarized in Appendix E.

A groundwater surface was modeled at NAVD88. The groundwater surface represents sea level, which is assumed to be the groundwater table below the subject property. A distributed load of 250 psf was applied to the ground surface within the portions of the subject property occupied by the existing residential structure and the proposed building addition to simulate the building loads imparted to the coastal bluff from these improvements.

The analyses modeled a rotational upper-bluff slope failure initiated along the portion of the coastal bluff face within the old paralic deposits and terminating along the coastal terrace, where the existing residential structure occurs and where the proposed additions will occur.

Based on our past work experience, this mass wasting scenario best represents the type of bluff failures occurring in Solana Beach coastal bluffs, when marine erosion removes the supporting Torrey Sandstone in the near-vertical sea cliff.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 42
We analyzed slope stability for the static conditions and during seismic loading. For the VHLVPLFDQDO\VLVZHDSSOLHGDVHLVPLFFRHIÞFLHQWRIi, which is considered conservative for the site vicinity given the maximum magnitude 7.2 design earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault.

Summary of Slope Stability Analyses

The analyses of the static condition show that the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject parcel has a factor-of-safety (FOS) of at least 1.5 against failure, approximately 14 feet landward of the coastal bluff edge, under the loading conditions imparted by the existing portion of the residential structure and the proposed building additions. Whereas, the analyses of the seismic condition indicate that the coastal bluff adjacent to the subject property has an FOS of at least 1.2, approximately 22 feet landward of the coastal bluff edge, under the loading conditions imparted by the existing portion of the residential structure, the proposed building additions, and the design earthquake. The slope stability output plots are included in Appendix E.

GEOLOGIC SETBACK

According to Policy 4.25 of the City’s “Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan” (City, 2018), the Geologic Setback is the location within a bluff-top property where stability can be reasonably assured for the economic life of the development. In other words, it is the additive of the 75-year bluff edge retreat distance and the location on the property where the static FOS against gross bluff failure is at least 1.5. In no case shall the Geologic Setback be less than 40 feet from the coastal bluff edge.

The recommended “Geologic Setback is summarized in the following table:

GEOLOGIC SETBACK SUMMARY
75-Year Bluff Edge Retreat Distance 25.0 Feet
Distance from the Coastal Bluff Edge Where the FOS Against Gross Bluff Failure Equals 1.5, for the Static Condition, Occurs 14.0 Feet

TOTAL OVERALL SETBACK FROM THE COASTAL BLUFF EDGE - ADDITIVE OF THE 75-YEAR BLUFF EDGE RETREAT DISTANCE AND THE DISTANCE FROM THE COASTAL BLUFF EDGE WHERE THE FOS AGAINST GROSS BLUFF FAILURE EQUALS 1.5, FOR THE STATIC CONDITION, OCCURS (25 FEET PLUS 14 FEET = 39 FEET)

39.0 Feet*
* - The Minimum 40-foot Geologic Setback Prescribed in Policy 4.25 of City (2018) Governs.

As shown above, in the case of the subject property, the minimum 40-foot Geologic Setback prescribed in Policy 4.25 of City (2018) is recommended for the proposed building additions.

The location of the Geologic Setback is VKRZQLQSODQDQGSURÞOHYLHZVRQ3ODWHVDQG Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 43
respectively. The proposed building additions are located landward of the recommended Geologic Setback.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
%DVHGRQRXUÞHOGH[SORUDWLRQODERUDWRU\WHVWLQJDQGJHRWHFKQLFDOHQJLQHHULQJand geologic analyses, it is our opinion that the subject property appears suitable to receive the proposed additional residential development from geotechnical engineering and geologic perspectives, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of the site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are:
x Bluff stability and bluff retreat throughout the 75-year design life of the proposed building additions.
x Earth material characteristics and the depth to suitable bearing materials below the existing grades.
x The on-going expansion/corrosion potentials of the onsite soils. x The proximity of the site to a corrosive environment (i.e., the 3DFLÞF2FHDQ
x The potential for perched groundwater to occur prior to, during, and after the proposed site development.
x Non-structural zone due to unmitigated perimeter conditions (proposed improvements located near property lines and existing improvements that will remain).
x Temporary slope stability.
x Regional seismic activity.

The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site.

The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein recognize the development information provided to us and the data obtained during our evaluation. ,I DQ\ VLJQLÞFDQW FKDQJHV DUH PDGH WR SURSRVHG development plans, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report DUH HYDOXDWHG RU PRGLÞHG LQ ZULWLQJ E\ WKLV ÞUP. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this ÞUP for review.

1. Geotechnical observation and testing services should be provided during grading to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in their HIIRUWWRFRPSDFWWKHÞOO

2. Geologic observations should be performed during earthwork and foundation construction to further evaluate the onsite geologic conditions. Although unlikely, if adverse geologic conditions or structures are encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 44

3. The results of the coastal bluff retreat and slope stability analyses indicate that the stability of the proposed building additions should be assured over their 75-year design life, without the need for coastal bluff protection measures, provided they maintain a horizontal setback of at least 40 feet from the current coastal bluff edge.

4. All undocumented DUWLÞFLDOÞOO, colluvium (topsoil), and the near-surface, weathered portions of the old paralic deposits, located within the influence of the currently proposed improvements, are considered potentially compressible in their existing state. Therefore, these soils should not be used for the support of the proposed settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., the proposed building addition underground utilities, hardscape, etc.) or any newly SODQQHGÞOOV These unsuitable soils should be removed and reused as properly compacted ÞOO (i.e., remedial grading) where they occur within the influence of the proposed improvements. Based on the available subsurface data, suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits occur at depths ranging between approximately 4 and 4¾ feet below the existing grades, within the proposed development area.

As an alternative to performing the recommended remedial grading, the proposed building additions may be supported by deepened footings that extend through the unsuitable soils into the underlying unweathered old paralic deposits, and the concrete slab-on-grade floor may be designed as a structural slab floor that is capable of spanning between footings without relying on the underlying soils for support. Any proposed settlement-sensitive improvements underlain by unmitigated soils at the conclusion of the proposed site development would be subject to settlement and associated distress. This should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties.

5. Expansion Index (E.I.) testing and the available subsurface data indicate that the onsite soils are very low in expansion potential (i.e., E.I. < 20). Thus, on a preliminary basis, the onsite soils do not meet the criteria of expansive soils DV GHÞQHG in Section 1803.5.3 of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022). As such, expansive soil mitigation is not required for the proposed development.

6. Based on the results of soil corrosivity testing, the onsite soils do not contain soluble sulfates at concentrations that would result in the deterioration of concrete. In addition, the testing indicated that the concentration of soluble chlorides in the tested sample does not exceed the threshold criteria recognized by California Department of Transportation ([Caltrans], 2021) for designating corrosive sites. The results of resistivity testing indicates that the tested sample of the onsite soils is moderately corrosive to exposed metals when in a moist state.

7. 'XHWRWKHSUR[LPLW\RIWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\WRWKH3DFLÞF2FHDQ*6,UHFRPPHQGV that the effects of sea spray be considered in the selection of the mix design for structural concrete.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 45

8. In general, and based upon the available data to date, groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during construction of the proposed site improvements, nor should it adversely affect the proposed site development, provided the recommendations in this report are properly followed. However, there is a potential for perched groundwater conditions to develop along zones of contrasting permeabilities and densities
LH ÞOO OLIWV JHRORJLF FRQWDFWV EHGGLQJ etc.) and along geologic discontinuities prior to, during, and following construction. The potential for perched water to occur should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties.

9. Relatively thick sections of potentially compressible soils may necessitate a special ]RQH RI FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RQ SHULPHWHUFRQÞQLQJ DUHDV This zone would be approximately equal to the thickness of potentially compressible earth materials if remedial grading cannot be performed onsite or offsite. Any proposed settlement-sensitive improvement, constructed within this zone, may require deepened foundations, additional reinforcement, structural setbacks, etc., or it will retain some potential for settlement and associated distress. This will require proper disclosure to all interested/affected parties, should this condition exist at the conclusion of grading.

10. On a preliminary basis, unsupported temporary slopes for excavations less than or equal to 20 feet in gross overall height, completed into the onsite soils, should be constructed in accordance with CAL/OSHA guidelines for Type “B” soils (i.e., 1:1 [h:v] gradient), provided saturated soils, groundwater, running sands, or other adverse conditions are absent. All temporary slopes should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist, licensed engineer, or their designee prior to entry by an unprotected worker. Temporary slope gradients may need to be inclined to flatter gradients or shoring may be required if potentially adverse conditions are exposed.

Shored excavations or slot grading/slot excavation will be necessary where existing improvements and property boundaries do not allow for the recommended temporary slope gradients.

11. The onsite soils are considered erodible. As such, the proper control of surface drainage is recommended to reduce the adverse effects of erosion within the influence of the existing and proposed improvements and along the coastal bluff.

Surface drainage should be evaluated by a licensed civil engineer.

12. The subject site is susceptible to moderate to strong ground shaking from an earthquake occurring on any of the regional Holocene-active fault systems.

Therefore, the seismicity-acceleration values and seismic design parameters, provided herein, should be considered during the design and construction of the proposed development.

13. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are provided in Appendix F. 6SHFLÞF recommendations are provided below.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 46

EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All earthwork should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix J (“Grading”) of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022), the requirements of the City of Solana Beach, and the Grading *XLGHOLQHVSUHVHQWHGLQ$SSHQGL[)H[FHSWZKHUHVSHFLÞFDOO\VXSHUVHGHGLQWKHWH[WRIWKLV report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and to review the earthwork schedule.

During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of WKHFRQWUDFWRUVKRXOGEHREVHUYHGDQGWKHÞOOVHOHFWLYHO\WHVWHGE\DUHSUHVHQWDWLYH V
RI*6,
,IXQXVXDORUXQH[SHFWHGFRQGLWLRQVDUHH[SRVHGLQWKHÞHOGWKH\VKRXOGEHUHYLHZHGE\WKLV RIÞFH DQG LI ZDUUDQWHGPRGLÞHG DQG DGGLWLRQDO UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV would be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. *6,GRHVQRWFRQVXOWLQWKHÞHOGRIVDIHW\HQJLQHHULQJ Site Preparation
All demolition debris, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the work area prior to the start of earthwork construction. Abandoned underground utilities should be capped or plugged with concrete or slurry along the boundaries of remedial grading excavations. Any cavities created by the removal of existing site improvements and vegetation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant. Mitigation of cavities would likely include removing any potentially compressible soils to expose suitable unweathered old SDUDOLFGHSRVLWVDQGWKHQEDFNÞOOLQJWKHH[FDYDWLRQZLWKDIORZDEOHÞOORUÞOOPDWHULDOVWKDW have been uniformly moisture conditioned to at least the soil’s optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).

Although not anticipated, it is possible that a septic system (i.e., leach lines, septic tank, vertical seepage pit, etc.) may be encountered during earthwork construction. If exhumed, GSI should be provided with the opportunity to observe the exposed septic system components. Recommendations for mitigation would be provided at that time.

Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Earth Materials

Unless extracted by the planned excavations, potentially compressible undocumented DUWLÞFLDOÞOOFROOXYLXP

WRSVRLO
DQGDQ\ZHDWKHUHGSRUWLRQVRIWKHROGSDUDOLFGHSRVLWVZLWKLQ the influence of the proposed settlement-sensitive improvements and newl\ SODQQHG ÞOOV should be removed to expose unweathered old paralic deposits. Following removal, these soils should be cleansed of any vegetation, organic matter, and deleterious debris, uniformly moisture conditioned to at least the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then be Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 47
recompacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). Based on the available subsurface data, excavations necessary to remove unsuitable soils within the proposed development area are anticipated to extend to depths ranging between approximately 4 and 4¾ feet below the existing grades, on a preliminary basis. Variations are possible and the potential for remedial grading excavations to extend to greater depths than stated above, cannot be precluded and should be anticipated.

Potentially compressible soils should be removed below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down and away from the bottom, outboard edge of any proposed settlement-sensitive improvement and the limits of newly SODQQHGÞOOVZKHUHQRWUHVWULFWHGE\SURSHUW\OLQHVDQGH[LVWLQJRQVLWH or offsite improvements that need to remain in service. Remedial grading excavations should EHREVHUYHGE\WKHJHRWHFKQLFDOFRQVXOWDQWSULRUWRVFDULÞFDWLRQDQGÞOOSODFHPHQW2QFH observed and approved, the bottoms of the remedial grading excavations should be sFDULÞHG at least 6 to 8 inches, uniformly moisture conditioned to at least the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then be recompacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).

Overexcavation

In order to provide uniform foundation support, any unweathered old paralic deposits located within the greater of either 48 inches of the pad grades or 24 inches below the lowest foundation element for the proposed additions should be overexcavated (undercut) and UHSODFHG ZLWK FRPSDFWHG ÞOO SUHSDUHG DQG FRPSDFWHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH recommendations in the “Compacted Fill Placement” section of this report. The maximum-to-PLQLPXP ÞOO WKLFNQHVV EHQHDWK WKH SURSRVHG EXLOGLQJ additions should not exceed a ratio of 3:1 (maximum:minimum). The bottom of the overexcavation should be sloped such that any accumulated perched groundwater will migrate away from the building areas, preferably toward the street.

At a minimum, overexcavation should be completed for a horizontal distance of at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter building footings, including those supporting exterior columns unless constrained by property boundaries or existing improvements that need to remain in service.

Slot Grading/Slot Excavations
As an alternative to shoring, slot grading/slot excavations may be performed when conducting remedial excavations 5 feet or less in depth, adjacent to the property boundaries or existing improvements that need to remain in service. The slot excavations may be conducted in an “A,” “B,” and “C” sequence, and should be a maximum of 6 feet in width.

Multiple slots may be simultaneously excavated provided that open slots are separated by at OHDVWIHHWRIWHVWHGDQGDSSURYHGFRPSDFWHGÞOORUXQGLVWXUEHGVRLOV7he actual number and widths of the slot excavations should not cause the bearing capacity of any existing, adjacent foundation to increase by more than 2.0 times the allowable bearing. This will require proper sequencing during construction. Pre-construction surveys and survey monitoring should be performed in conjunction with slot grading/slot excavations.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 48
Perimeter Conditions
The 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas to be graded, under the purview of a grading permit, and not just within the influence of the proposed improvements. Relatively deep removals may also necessitate a special ]RQHRIFRQVLGHUDWLRQRQSHULPHWHUFRQÞQLQJDUHDV7KLV]RQHZRXOGEHDSSUR[LPDWHO\HTXDO to the depth of the remedial grading excavations, if remedial grading cannot be performed onsite or offsite. Based on the available subsurface data and our site observations, any SURSRVHGLPSURYHPHQWRUSODQQHGÞOOORFDWHGZLWKLQDSSUR[LPDWHO\4 to 4¾ feet, and possibly greater, from the property boundaries or existing onsite, or offsite improvements that are to remain in service, would be affected by perimeter conditions.

Compacted Fill Placement
)ROORZLQJ VFDULÞFDWLRQ RI WKH ERWWRP RI WKH UHPHGLDO JUDGLQJ H[FDYDWLRQV DQG overexcavations, the reused onsite soils and import (if necessary) should be cleansed of any vegetation, organic matter, and deleterious debris, placed in relatively thin lifts, uniformly moisture conditioned to at least the soil’s optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative density of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). %HQFKLQJ VKRXOG EH SHUIRUPHG ZKHQ SODFLQJ FRPSDFWHG ÞOOV RQ VXUIDFes with slope gradients steeper than 5:1 (h:v). The FRPSDFWHGÞOOVKRXOGKDYHDQ(,OHVVWKDQRUHTXDO to 20 and a P.I. less than or equal to 14.

Import Soils
,ILPSRUWÞOOLVQHFHVVDU\DVDPSOHRIWKHVRLOLPSRUWVKRXOGEHHYDOXDWHGE\WKLVRIÞFHSULRU to importing, in order to assure compatibility with the onsite soils and the recommendations presented in this report. If non-manufactured materials are used, environmental GRFXPHQWDWLRQIRUWKHH[SRUWVLWHVKRXOGEHSURYLGHGIRU*6,UHYLHZ$WOHDVWÞYH
EXVLQHVV
days of lead time should be allowed by builders or contractors for proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow for environmental document review, particle-size analysis, laboratory standard, expansion index testing, and an evaluation of the blended import/native characteristics, as deemed necessary. Import soils should have an E.I. of 20 or less and a P.I. of 14 or less. The use of sXEGUDLQVDWWKHERWWRPRIWKHÞOOFDSPD\EH necessary, and may be recommended based on the import soil’s compatibility with the onsite soils.

Graded Slope Construction
Based on the relatively flat-lying site topography and our understanding of the proposed development, the construction of graded slopes is not anticipated. Thus, recommendations for graded slope construction are not included in this report but can be provided upon request.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 49
Temporary Slopes

On a preliminary basis, temporary slopes for excavations extending to depths less than or equal to 20 feet should conform to CAL/OSHA or OSHA requirements for Type “B” soils (i.e., 1:1 [h:v] temporary slope gradient), provided groundwater, saturated soils, running sands, or other adverse conditions are not present. Temporary slopes greater than 20 feet in overall KHLJKW RUWKRVHWKDWZRXOG UHFHLYHVXUFKDUJHIURPVWUXFWXUHVWUDIÞFRUVWRFNSLOHVVKRXOG receive additional geotechnical evaluation prior to construction. Construction materials and soil stockSLOHVDQGKHDY\HTXLSPHQWVWRUDJHWUDIÞFVKRXOGQRWRFFXUZLWKLQq+rRIWKHWRSRI any temporary slope where “H” equals the height of the temporary slope. All temporary slopes should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist, licensed engineer, or their designee prior to unprotected worker entry into the excavation. If adverse conditions are exposed in temporary slopes, they may need to be inclined to flatter gradients or require the use of shoring. If temporary slopes conflict with property boundaries or existing improvements that need to remain in service, shoring or slot grading/slot excavation may be necessary. The need for shoring or slot grading/slot excavation could be further evaluated during the grading plan review stage and during site earthwork.

Excavation Observation and Monitoring (All Excavations)

When excavations are made adjacent to an existing improvement (i.e., underground utility, wall, road, building, etc.) there is a risk of some damage even if a well-designed system of excavation is planned and executed. We therefore recommend that a systematic program of observations be made before, during, and after construction to determine the effects (if any) of the excavation on existing improvements.

We believe that this is necessary for two reasons. First, if excessive movements (i.e., more than ½-inch) are detected early enough, remedial measures can be undertaken which could possibly prevent serious damage to existing improvements. Second, the responsibility for damage to the existing improvement can be evaluated more equitably if the cause and extent of the damage can be determined more precisely.

Monitoring should include the measurement of any horizontal and vertical movements of the existing structures/improvements. Locations and types of monitoring devices should be selected prior to the start of construction. The program of monitoring should be agreed upon between the project team, the site surveyor and the geotechnical consultant, prior to excavation.

Reference points should be provided on existing walls, buildings, and other settlement-sensitive improvements. These points should be placed as low as possible on the walls and buildings adjacent to the excavation. Exact locations may be dictated by critical points, such as bearing walls or columns for buildings; and surface points on roadways or curbs, near the top of the excavation.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 50
For a survey monitoring system, an accuracy of a least 0.01 foot should be required.

Reference points should be installed and read initially prior to excavation. The readings should continue until all construction below ground has been completed and the permanent EDFNÞOOKDVEHHQEURXJKWWRÞQLVKJUDGH
The frequency of readings will depend upon the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. Weekly readings could be assumed throughout the duration of construction with daily readings during rapid excavation near the bottom of the excavation. The readings should be plotted by the project surveyor/civil engineer and then reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. In addition to the monitoring system, it would be prudent for the geotechnical consultant and the contractor to make a complete inspection of the existing structures and improvements both before and after construction. The inspection should be directed toward detecting any signs of damage, particularly those caused by settlement.

Notes should be made and pictures should be taken where necessary.

Observation

All excavations should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist, licensed engineer, or their designee. Should the observation reveal any unforeseen hazard, mitigative recommendations would be provided at that time. Please inform GSI at least 24 hours prior to any required site observation.

Earthwork Balancing (Shrinkage/Bulking)
The volume change of excavated materials, upon compaction as structural fill, is anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and bulking of the earth materials, anticipated to be encountered during earthwork, may be approximated by using the following parameters:

Undocumented Fill and Colluvium ...................................................... 5% to 15% shrinkage Weathered Old Paralic Deposits .......................... 2% to 5% shrinkage or 2% to 3% bulking Unweathered Old Paralic Deposits .......................................................... 2% to 5% bulking The above factors are estimates only, based on the preliminary data. The undocumented fill, colluvium, and weathered old paralic deposits may achieve higher shrinkage if organics or clay content is higher than anticipated, if a high degree of porosity is encountered, or if compaction averages more than 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).

In addition, extensive rodent burrowing may result in higher shrinkage. Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 51

ALTERNATIVE TO REMEDIAL GRADING FOR BUILDING ADDITION SUPPORT

As an alternative to performing the recommended remedial grading, the clients may consider supporting the proposed building additions on deepened footings that extend through SRWHQWLDOO\FRPSUHVVLEOHXQGRFXPHQWHGÞOOFROOXYLXPDQGZHDWKHUHGROGSDUDOLFdeposits, and penetrate at least 1 foot into the underlying, unweathered old paralic deposits. Based on the available subsurface data, the deepened footing should be anticipated to extend to depths on the order of 5 to 5¾ feet below the existing grades to attain the recommended minimum embedment. However, deeper footing embedment may be necessary, based on the exposed conditions.

Since the proposed concrete slab-on-grade floors would overlie unmitigated, potentially compressible soils, the Project Structural Engineer should design the floors as structural slabs, capable of spanning between footings without relying on the underlying soils for support.

This alternative is not intended to provide support of the ancillary site improvements, such as underground utilities, flatwork/hardscape, etc. Thus, any proposed improvement not VXSSRUWHG E\ ÞOO VRLOV WKDW ZLOO EH SODFHG DQG FRPSDFWHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH recommendations provided in the “Earthwork Construction Recommendations” section of this report or by suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits will be potentially subject to settlement and associated distress.

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS – PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION

FOUNDATIONS AND CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS
General
The following recommendations for foundation and concrete slab-on-grade floor design and construction are considered preliminary, and are based on the assumed loading conditions and the subsurface and laboratory data collected over the course of this study. Final foundation and concrete slab-on-grade floor design recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of grading, and should be based on the expansion potential of the soils located near the building addition pad grade. Although not anticipated, the preliminary recommendations for foundation and concrete slab-on-grade floor design and construction may require revision.

The following information and recommendations for foundation and concrete slab-on-grade floor design and construction are not meant to supersede WKHVSHFLÞFDWLRQVSURYLGHGby the Project Structural Engineer or a civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as they relate to foundation and concrete slab-on-grade floor design.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 52
Shallow Foundation Design

1. Shallow foundations for the proposed building additions should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the 2022 CBC and the recommendations contained in this section.

2. 7KH IRXQGDWLRQV VKRXOG EH VXSSRUWHG E\ FRPSDFWHG ÞOOWKDW KDV EHHQWHVWHG DQG approved by the geotechnical consultant, directly overlying suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits. Alternatively, the foundation should bear on suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits. The foundations should not simultaneously bear on compacted ÞOODQGXQZHDWKHUHGROGSDUDOLFGHSRVLWV

3. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of continuous footings that maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum embedment depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade into FRPSDFWHGÞOORUunweathered old paralic deposits. A similar allowable bearing value may be used in the design of isolated spread footings that maintain a minimum dimension of 24 inches by 24 inches in plan view and a minimum embedment depth of 24 inches below the lowest DGMDFHQWJUDGHLQWRFRPSDFWHGÞOORU24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and 12 inches into unweathered old paralic deposits. The allowable bearing value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in embedment depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. In addition, this value may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads.

4. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a maximum density of 250 psf/foot (psf/ft or pounds per cubic foot [pcf]), with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. ,IWKHIRRWLQJV DUH QRW FRQÞQHG E\ FRQFUHWHVODE-on-grade floors or pavements, passive pressure should be neglected in the upper 6 inches of the footing to account for potential disturbance from landscaping activities. The neglection of passive pressure in deepened footings extending at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and a minimum of 12 inches into suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits is not required.

5. A maximum FRHIÞFLHQW RI IULFWLRQ of 0.35 should be used for frictional resistance between soil and concrete7KHFRHIÞFLHQWRIIULFWLRQVKRXOGEHPXOWLSOLHGE\the dead load forces.

6. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third.

7. Although not anticipated, footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so they extend below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected up and toward the structures from the heels of the retaining wall footings. Alternatively, the retaining walls may be designed to accommodate the building surcharge.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 53

8. Footings for the proposed building additions should maintain a minimum 40-foot horizontal setback from the current coastal bluff edge (see Plates 1 and 2). Footings adjacent to any other slopes with gradients steeper than 5:1 (h:v) should be setback in accordance with the guidelines presented in Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2022 CBC.

GSI recommends a minimum horizontal setback distance of 7 feet, as measured from the bottom, outboard edge of the footing to the slope face.

Foundation Settlement
Shallow foundations embedded into WHVWHG DQG DSSURYHG FRPSDFWHG ÞOO RYHUO\LQJ unweathered old paralic deposits, per the recommendations in this report, should be designed to accommodate a total settlement of at least 1½ inches and a differential settlement of at least ¾ inch in a 40-foot span (angular distortion = 1/640). Shallow foundations embedded into unweathered old paralic deposits, per the recommendations in this report, should be designed to accommodate a total settlement of at least 1 inch and a differential settlement of at least ½ inch in a 40-foot span (angular distortion = 1 /960).

Shallow Foundation and Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floor Construction Recommendations

1. If the recommended remedial grading is performed, continuous footings should be at least 12 and 15 inches wide for one- and two-story floor loads, respectively, and should be founded into tested and approved compacted ÞOO, overlying suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits, at minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grades for one- and two-story floor loads, respectively. Isolated spread footings should be at least 24 inches by 24 inches in plan view and should be founded into tested and approved compacted ÞOO, overlying suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits, at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.

At a minimum, all footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars.

Continuous footings should include two reinforcing bars placed near the tops and two reinforcing bars placed near the bottoms of the footings. The arrangement and positioning of the reinforcing bars in isolated spread footings should be provided by the Project Structural Engineer.

2. If the deepened footing and structural slab floor alternative is selected, the minimum widths of continuous footings and the minimum plan view dimension of isolated spread footings should be the same as those recommended in the preceding note. The deepeneG IRRWLQJV VKRXOG H[WHQG WKURXJK DOO XQGRFXPHQWHG ÞOO FROOXYLXP DQG weathered old paralic deposits, and penetrate at least 12 inches into suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits. Based on the available subsurface data, the deepened footings are anticipated to extend at least 5 to 5¾ feet below the existing grades on a preliminary basis in order to attain the recommended penetration into suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits. However, subsurface conditions may vary, and the deepened footings may need to extend to greater depths to achieve the recommended embedment.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 54

3. A grade beam should be provided across large wall openings (i.e., garage doors, picture windows, etc.). The grade beam should be at least 12 inches by 12 inches in cross section, and be reinforced with a minimum of two steel reinforcing bars, with one bar placed near the top and one bar placed near the bottom of the grade beam.

4. In order to increase seismic performance of the foundation and reduce the potential for lateral drift, isolated spread footings should be tied to the perimeter building foundation with grade beams in at least one direction. The grade beam construction should conform to the recommendations in the preceding note. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the footings it joins. This may require a stepped grade beam if the footings have differing bearing elevations.

5. Stepped footings and grade beams should be constructed in accordance with the requirements in Section 1809.3 of the 2022 CBC.

6. If the recommended remedial grading is performed, concrete slab-on-grade floors should be at least 4½ inches thick. At a minimum, the concrete slab-on-grade floors should be reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center in two perpendicular directions. All concrete slab-on-grade reinforcement should be supported on chairs to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab. "Hooking" of the reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning.

Columns should be structurally isolated from the concrete slab-on-grade floors.

7. If the deepened footing and structural slab floor alternative is implemented, the Project Structural Engineer should design the floor slab to span between footings without relying on the underlying unmitigated soils for support, since these soils could settle, leaving the floor slab suspended.

8. The Project Structural Engineer should consider the use of transverse and longitudinal control joints to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. 7ZR RIWKH EHVW ZD\VWR FRQWUROWKLVPRYHPHQW DUH

DGG D VXIÞFLHQW DPRXQW RI
reinforcing steel to increase the tensile strength of the slab; and 2) provide an adequate amount of control and expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. Transverse and longitudinal crack control joints should be spaced no more than 13 feet on center and constructed to a minimum depth of T/4, where “T” equals the slab thickness in inches. Per PCA and ACI guidelines, joints are commonly spaced at distances equal to 24 to 30 times the slab thickness. Joint spacing that is greater than 15 feet requires the use of load transfer devices (dowels or diamond plates).

9. Concrete slab-on-grade floors for garages should be reinforced as recommended above and installed separately from the structural footings. These floor slabs should be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 55

10. Slab subgrade pre-soaking is not VSHFLÞFDOO\ UHFRPPHQGHG for the very low expansion potential of the onsite soils. However, GSI recommends that the moisture content of the subgrade soils be equal to, or slightly greater than, the soils’ optimum moisture content no more than 72 hours prior to the placement of the slab underlayment section (i.e., sand and vapor retarder).

11. Any soil generated from trenching for the building addition foundations or underground utilities, that is not removed from the site, should be uniformly moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in the laboratory per ASTM D 1557. 7KH SODFHG ÞOO VKRXOG QRW DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFW SRVLWLYH VXUIDFH GUDLQDJH DZD\ IURP IRXQGDWLRQV DQG WKH FRDVWDO EOXII HGJH $Q\ DGGLWLRQDO ÞOO placement should occur landward of the recommended Geologic Setback.

Foundation Underpinning
If the project requires the underpinning of existing foundations, the widths and embedment depths of the underpin footings should not be less than the minimum recommendations provided in the preceding section. GSI anticipates that underpin footings will need to penetrate any undocumHQWHGÞOOFROOXYLXPDQGZHDWKHUHGROGSDUDOLFDQGH[WHQGDWOHDVW 12 inches into the underlying unweathered old paralic deposits.

SOIL MOISTURE TRANSMISSION CONSIDERATIONS
GSI has evaluated the potential for water vapor or moisture transmission through new concrete floor slabs, in light of typical floor coverings and improvements. Please note that slab moisture emission rates range from about 2 to 27 lbs/24 hours/1,000 square feet from a typical slab (Kanare, 2005), while floor covering manufacturers generally recommend about 3 lbs/24 hours as an upper limit. The recommendations in this section are not intended to preclude the transmission of water vapor or moisture through the foundation or floor slabs.

Foundation systems and floor slabs shall not allow water vapor or moisture to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component or to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application (State of California, 2025). 7KHVHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVPD\EHH[FHHGHGRUVXSSOHPHQWHGE\DqZDWHUSURRÞQJr specialist, the Project Architect, or the Project Structural Engineer. Thus, the clients will need WR HYDOXDWH WKH IROORZLQJ LQ OLJKW RI D FRVW YV EHQHÞW DQDO\VLV Rwner expectations and
repairs/replacement), along with disclosure to all interested/affected parties. It should also be noted that water vapor or moisture transmission will occur in new slab-on-grade floors as a result of chemical reactions taking place within the curing concrete. Water vapor or moisture transmission through concrete floor slabs as a result of concrete curing has the potential to adversely affect sensitive floor coverings depending on the thickness of the concrete floor slab and the duration of time between the placement of concrete, and the floor covering. It is possible that a slab moisture sealant may be needed prior to the placement of Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 56
moisture sensitive floor coverings or adhesives if a thick slab-on-grade floor is used and the time frame between concrete and floor covering placement is relatively short.

Considering the E.I. test results presented herein, and the known soil conditions in the region, the anticipated typical water vapor or moisture transmission rates, floor coverings, and improvements (to be chosen by the clients and the Project Architect) that can tolerate water vapor or moisture WUDQVPLVVLRQUDWHVZLWKRXWVLJQLÞFDQWGLVWUHVVWKHIROORZLQJDOWHUQDWLYHV are provided:
x The concrete floor slabs, including those for garages, should be thicker. x Concrete slab-on-grade floor underlayment should consist of a 15-mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the 2022 CBC and the manufacturer’s recommendation. The vapor retarder should comply with ASTM E 1745 – Class “A” criteria (i.e., Stego Wrap, Husky Yellow Guard, or approved equivalent), and be installed in accordance with ACI 302.1R-15 and ASTM E 1643. x The 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E 1745 - Class “A”) should be installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.).
x The concrete slab-on-grade floors should be immediately underlain by a sand cushion consisting of at least 2 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent [SE] ൒ 30), placed atop a 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E 1745 - Class “A,” per Engineering Bulletin 119 [Kanare, 2005]), that is installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.). The manufacturer should provide instructions for lap sealing, including minimum width of lap, method of sealing, and either supply or specify suitable products for lap sealing (ASTM E 1745), and compliance with code.

ACI 302.1R-15 (ACI, 2015) states, “Experience has shown, however, that the greatest level of protection for floor coverings, coatings, or building environments is provided when the vapor retarder/barrier is placed in direct contact with the slab.

Placing concrete in direct contact with the vapor retarder/barrier eliminates the potential for water from sources such as rain, saw-cutting, curing, cleaning, or FRPSDFWLRQWREHFRPHWUDSSHGZLWKLQWKHÞOOFRXUVH:HWRUVDWXUDWHGÞOODERYHWKH vapor retarder/bDUULHUFDQVLJQLÞFDQWO\OHQJWKHQWKHWLPHUHTXLUHGIRUDVODEWRGU\WR a level acceptable to the manufacturers of floor coverings, adhesives, and coatings. $ ÞOO OD\HU VDQGZLFKHG EHWZHHQ WKH YDSRU UHWDUGHUEDUULHU DQG WKH FRQFUHWH slab-on-grade floor also serves as an avenue for moisture to enter and travel freely beneath the slab, which can lead to an increase in moisture within the slab once it is FRYHUHG0RLVWXUHFDQHQWHUWKHÞOOOD\HUWKURXJKYRLGVWHDUVRUSXQFWXUHVLQWKH vapor retarder/barrier.” Therefore, additional observation and testing will be necessary for the cushion or sand layer for moisture content, and relatively uniform thicknesses, prior to the placement of concrete.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 57
Conversely, ACI 302.1R-15 indicates that placing concrete directly upon the vapor retarder requires additional design and construction considerations to avoid potential slab-UHODWHGSUREOHPVVXFKDVH[FHVVLYHFRQFUHWHVHWWOHPHQWDQGVLJQLÞFDQWO\ODUJHU length change during casting and drying shrinkage, and when the concrete is subject to environmental changes. In addition, dominant joint behavior can be made worse when the slab is placed in direct contact with the vapor retarder. Further, settlement cracking over reinforcing steel is more likely because of increased settlement resulting from a longer bleeding period. There is also a potential for enhanced slab curl. Lastly, if rapid surface drying conditions are present, the surface of the concrete (i.e., top fraction of an inch [millimeter]) placed directly upon the vapor retarder would have a greater propensity to dry and crust over, leaving the underlying concrete relatively less stiff or unhardened. This may impact surface flatness of the concrete slab and result in blistering or delamination. Design and construction measures should be implemented to offset or reduce these effects.

Given the above, GSI recommends that all responsible parties participate in a ULVNEHQHÞWHYDOXDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJWKHVSHFLÞHGORFDWLRQRIWKHYDSRU UHWDUGHUGXULQJ project design.
x The vapor retarder should be directly underlain by a capillary break consisting of at least 2 inches of clean sand (SE ൒ 30) that has been placed upon a properly prepared slab subgrade.
x Concrete used in the construction of the building foundations and concrete floor slabs should have a maximum water-to-cement ratio (W/C) of 0.50. This does not supersede American Concrete Institute 318-19[22] ([ACI], 2019[22]) requirements for the protection of structural concrete. Additional concrete mix design recommendations should be provided by the Project Structural Engineer or ZDWHUSURRÞQJFRQVXOWDQW&RQFUHWHÞQLVKLQJDQGZRUNDELOLW\VKRXOGEHDGGUHVVHGE\ the structural consultant and a waterpURRÞQJ FRQVXOWDQW When selecting the mix design for structural concrete, the potential for the concrete to receive sea spray should be considered.
x Where slab water-to-cement ratios are as indicated herein, or admixtures used, the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams and footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundations and floor slabs is designed or treated for more uniform moisture protection. x The clients VKRXOG EHVSHFLÞFDOO\ DGYLVHG ZKLFK EXLOGLQJ DUHDV DUH VXLWDEOHIRUWLOH flooring, vinyl flooring, or other types of moisture/water vapor-sensitive flooring and which building areas are not suitable for these types of flooring applications. In all planned floor areas, flooring should be installed per the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 58
x Additional recommendations regarding moisture or water vapor transmission should be provided by the Project Architect/Structural Engineer/slab or foundation designer DQGVKRXOGEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHVSHFLÞHGIORRUFRYHULQJVLQGLFDWHGE\WKHArchitect.

Regardless of the mitigation, some limited moisture/water vapor transmission through the foundations and concrete floor slabs cannot be entirely precluded and should be anticipated.

Construction crews may require special training for installation of certain product(s), as well DVFRQFUHWHÞQLVKLQJWHFKQLTXHV7KHXVHRIVSHFLDOL]HGSURGXFW V
VKRXOGEHDSSURYHGE\
the slab designer, Project AUFKLWHFW DQG WKH ZDWHUSURRÞQJ FRQVXOWDQW $ WHFKQLFDO representative of the flooring contractor should review the slab and moisture retarder plans and provide comment prior to the construction of the foundation or improvement.

RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
General
In the following sections, GSI provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of conventional concrete masonry unit (CMU) and cast-in-place concrete (CIPC) retaining walls should they be included in the proposed additional development. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, segmental, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site-VSHFLÞFFRQGLWLRQV Conventional Retaining Walls
The design parameters provided below assume that either very low expansive soils (typically Class SHUPHDEOHÞOWHUPDWHULDORU&ODVVDJJUHJDWHEDVH or native onsite soils with an E.I.

XSWRDQGD3,XSWRDUHXVHGWREDFNÞOODQ\UHWDLQLQJZDOO7KHW\SHRIEDFNÞOO LH
VHOHFWRUQDWLYH
VKRXOGEHVSHFLÞHGE\WKHZDOOGHVLJQHUDQGFOHDUO\VKRZQRQWKHUHWDLQLQJ wall plans. Based on our observations and laboratory testing, the onsite soils may not meet the criteria of select retaining waOOEDFNÞOO7KXVFRPSOLDQFHWHVWLQJLVUHFRPPHQGHGSULRU to placing the onsite soils as select UHWDLQLQJZDOOEDFNÞOO,QRUGHUWRUHGXFHODWHUDOHDUWK pressures acting upon the SURSRVHGUHWDLQLQJZDOOVVHOHFWRUQDWLYHEDFNÞOOZLWKDQ(,XS to 20 and a P.I. up to 14 should be placed above a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected up and toward the retained soils from the heel of the retaining wall foundation. :DWHUSURRÞQJmay be considered for the proposed retaining walls in order to reduce the potential for efflorescence staining at the face. The use of a waterstop may also be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. If used, wDWHUSURRÞQJ VKRXOG EH LQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVSURYLGHGE\WKHSURMHFWZDWHUSURRÞQJFRQVXOWDQWDQG wall designer.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 59
Preliminary Retaining Wall Foundation Design
7KH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU DOORZDEOH EHDULQJ YDOXH SDVVLYH SUHVVXUH DQG FRHIÞFLHQW RI friction provided in the “Shallow Foundation Design” section of this report should be used in the preliminary design of retaining wall foundations. Retaining wall footings should be at least 24 inches wide. If the remedial grading recommendations in the report are implemented, the retaining wall footings should extend at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade into tested and approved compDFWHG ÞOO RYHUO\LQJ VXLWDEOHunweathered old paralic deposits.

Otherwise, the retaining wall footings should be deepened such that they penetrate all XQGRFXPHQWHG DUWLÞFLDO ÞOO FROOXYLXP DQG ZHDWKHUHG old paralic deposits, and extend at least 12 inches into the underlying unweathered old paralic deposits. Any retaining wall footings near the perimeter of the site will likely need to be deepened into unweathered old paralic deposits for adequate vertical and lateral bearing support.

Foundations for new site retaining walls should be setback at least 40 feet from the coastal bluff edge. The foundations for retaining walls incorporated into the proposed building additions should not extend seaward of the recommended Geologic Setback. Retaining wall footing setbacks from minor slopes should comply with Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2022 CBC.

GSI recommends a minimum horizontal setback distance of 7 feet, as measured from the bottom, outboard edge of the footing to the face of minor slopes. %DFNÞOO6RLO'HQVLWLHVIRU5HWDLQLQJ:DOO'HVLJQ
BDFNÞOOsoil densities ranging between 115 pcf and 120 pcf may be used in the preliminary GHVLJQRIWKHUHWDLQLQJZDOOV7KLVDVVXPHVWKHXVHRIDJUDQXODUEDFNÞOOZLWKDQDYHUDJH relative density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).

Restrained Walls
5HWDLQLQJZDOOVWKDWZLOOEHUHVWUDLQHGSULRUWRSODFLQJDQGFRPSDFWLQJEDFNÞOOPDWHULDORUWKDW have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure

()3
RISFIDQGSFIIRUVHOHFWDQGYHU\ORZH[SDQVLYHQDWLYHEDFNÞOOUHVSHFWLYHO\7KH design should include any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner.

Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 12 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superseded by regional VWDQGDUG GHVLJQ +RZHYHU WKH UHJLRQDO VWDQGDUG GHVLJQ UHTXLUHV WKDW WKH ZDOO EDFNÞOO consist of clean sands or gravels, or mixtures of the aforementioned. Based on the onsite VRLOFRQGLWLRQVLPSRUWHGEDFNÞOOZLOOOLNHO\EHQHFHVVDU\LIUHJLRQDOVWDQGDUGGHVLJQUHWDLQLQJ walls are included in the proposed site development.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 60
Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given EHORZ IRU VSHFLÞF VORSH JUDGLHQWV RI WKH UHWDLQHG PDWHULDO 7KHVH do not include other VXSHULPSRVHG ORDGLQJ FRQGLWLRQV GXH WR WUDIÞF VWUXFWXUHV VHLVPLF HYHQWV RU DGYHUVH JHRORJLF FRQGLWLRQV :KHQ ZDOO FRQÞJXUDWLRQV DUH ÞQDOL]ed, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request.

For preliminary planning purposes, the structural consultant/wall designer should incorporate WKHVXUFKDUJHRIWUDIÞFRQUHWDLQLQJZDOOVLIYHKLFXODUWUDIÞFFRXOGRFFXUZLWKLQDKRUL]RQWDO distance of “H” from the back of the retaining wall (where “H” equals the retained soil height). 7KH WUDIÞF VXUFKDUJH PD\ EH WDNHQ DV SVIIW LQ WKH XSSHU IHHW RI WKH ZDOO IRU OLJKW SDVVHQJHUWUXFNDQGFDUWUDIÞFH[FOXGLQJZDOOIUHHERDUG)RUKHDY\D[OHORDGV +6
D
SVIIWWUDIÞFVXUFKDUJHVKRXOGEHDSSlied in the upper 5 feet of the wall, excluding wall freeboard. This does not include the surcharge of parked vehicles, which should be evaluated at a higher surcharge to account for the effects of seismic loading.

Equivalent fluid pressures for the design of cantilevered retaining walls are provided in the following table:

SURFACE SLOPE OF

RETAINED MATERIAL
(HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL)

EQUIVALENT
FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F.
(SELECT BACKFILL)
(2)

EQUIVALENT
FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F.
(NATIVE BACKFILL)
(3)
Level(1)
2 to 1
35 50
45 65
(1) /HYHOEDFNÞOOEHKLQGDUHWDLQLQJZDOOLVGHÞQHGDVFRPSDFWHGHDUWKPDWHULDOVSURSHUO\GUDLQHGZLWKRXWDVORSHIRUD distance of 2H behind the wall, where H is the height of the wall. (2) SE > 30, P.I. < 14, E.I. < 20, and < 10% passing No. 200 sieve. (3) E.I. = 0 to 20, SE > 30, P.I. < 14, E.I. < 20, and < 15% passing No. 200 sieve.

Seismic Surcharge
For retaining walls incorporated into a building, site retaining walls with more than 6 feet of retained materials (as measured vertically from the bottom of the wall footing at the heel to the ground surface), or retaining walls that could present ingress/egress constraints to emergency personnel and equipment, in the event of failure, GSI recommends that the walls be evaluated for seismic surcharge in general accordance with 2022 CBC requirements.

The retaining walls in this category should maintain an overturning Factor-of-Safety (FOS) of approximately 1.1 when the seismic surcharge (seismic increment) is applied. For restrained walls, the seismic surcharge should be applied as a uniform surcharge load from the bottom RIWKHIRRWLQJ
H[FOXGLQJVKHDUNH\V
WRWKHWRSRIWKHEDFNÞOODWWKHKHHORIWKHZDOOIRRWLQJ For cantilevered walls, the seismic surcharge should be applied as an inverted triangular pressure distribution for the portion of the wall located above 0.6H up from the bottom of the Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 61
footing to the top of the retained soils, where “H” equals the retained soil height. For the evaluation of the seismic surcharge, the bearing pressure may exceed the static value by one-third, considering the transient nature of this surcharge. This is for local wall stability only.

The seismic surcharge for the proposed retaining walls may be taken as 20H, where “H” equals the height of the retained soils, as measured vertically from the bottom of the footing to the ground surface. The recommended seismic surcharge is derived from the guidelines set forth in City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) Information Bulletin Document No.: P/BC 2020-83 (LADBS, 2020), which are based on Seed and Whitman (1970).

ŬEFP (seismic) = ¾khŬsoil
Where:

ŬEFP (seismic) is the seismic increment expressed as equivalent fluid pressure (pounds per cubic foot [pcf]);
kh LVWKHVHLVPLFODWHUDOHDUWKSUHVVXUHFRHIÞFLHQWHTXLYDOHQWWRRQH-half of twothirds of PGAM (0.673 g x ᪟ x ½ = 0.225 g); Ŭsoil is the total unit weight of the retained soils (120 pcf).

Thus, for the proposed retaining walls:

ŬEFP (seismic) = ¾ x ½ x ᪟ x 0.673 x 120 pcf = 20.3 pcf (use 20 pcf [20H]) 5HWDLQLQJ:DOO%DFNÞOODQG'UDLQDJH
If the proposed retaining walls are not designed for hydrostatic pressure, positive drainage should be provided behind the walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets.

A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1, 2, and 3, present the backdrainage options discussed below. At a minimum, backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated Schedule 40 or SDR 35 drain pipe, with the perforations oriented down, encased iQHLWKHU&ODVVSHUPHDEOHÞOWHU material or ¾ inch to 1½-LQFKFOHDQFUXVKHGJUDYHOZUDSSHGLQDSSURYHGÞOWHUIDEULF 0LUDÞ
140N or equivalent). The backdrain should flow via gravity (minimum 1 percent slope) WRZDUGDQDSSURYHGGUDLQDJHIDFLOLW\LGHQWLÞHGE\WKHProject Civil Engineer or Architect. A sump pump is recommended if the retaining walls cannot outlet via gravity. The sump pump should consist of a double-redundant system equipped with an alarm to signal pump failure.

The sump pump system should not saturate the surrounding soils.

Item K.2
12 inches
(1) Waterproofing
membrane
Provide surface drainage via an
engineered V-ditch (see civil plans
for details)
(5) Weep hole
Proposed grade
sloped to drain
per precise civil
drawings
(4) Pipe
(3) Filter fabric
(2) Gravel
2:1 (h:v) slope
1:1 (h:v) or flatter
backcut to be properly
benched
Slope or level
Native backfill
Very Low to Low
Expansive soils,
E.I. <50, P.I. <15
(1) Waterproofing membrane.
(2) Gravel: Clean, crushed, 3 4 to 11 2 inch.
(3) Filter fabric: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent.
(4) Pipe: 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient sloped to suitable, approved outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep holes: For CMU walls, Omit grout every other block, at or slightly above finished surface. For reinforced concrete walls, minimum 2-inch diameter weep holesspaced at 20 foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls.
(6) Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width using level fill or cut natural earth materials, an additional "heel " drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant.

Footing and wall
design by others
(6) Footing
Structural footing or
settlement-sensitive improvement
H
H/3
CMU or
reinforced-concrete
wall
Item K.2
6 inches
(1) Waterproofing
membrane (optional) Provide surface drainage via engineered V-ditch (see civil plan details)
(5) Weep hole
Proposed grade
sloped to drain per
precise civil
drawings (4) Pipe
(3) Filter fabric
(2) Composite
drain
CMU or
reinforced-concrete
wall
2:1 (h:v) slope
1:1 (h:v) or flatter
backcut to be properly
benched
Slope or level
Native backfill
Very Low to Low
Expansive soils
E.I. <50, P.I. <15
(1) Waterproofing membrane (optional): Liquid boot or approved mastic equivalent. (2) Drain: Miradrain 6000 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls; Miradrain 6200 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (all perforations down). (3) Filter fabric: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. (4) Pipe: 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down).
(5) Weep holes: For CMU walls, Omit grout every other block, at or slightly above finished surface. For reinforced concrete walls, minimum 2-inch diameter weep holesspaced at 20 foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls.
(6) Gravel: Clean, crushed, 3 4 to 11 2 inch.
(7) Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width using level fill or cut natural earth materials, an additional "heel " drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. (6) 1 cubic foot of
3 4-inch crushed rock
(7) Footing
Footing and wall
design by others
Structural footing or
settlement-sensitive improvement
Item K.2
(1) Waterproofing
membrane
Provide surface drainage
(5) Weep hole
Proposed grade
sloped to drain
per precise civil
drawings
(4) Pipe
(3) Filter fabric
(2) Gravel
CMU or
reinforced-concrete
wall
2:1 (h:v) slope
1:1 (h:v) or flatter
backcut to be
properly benched
Slope or level
(8) Native backfill
(1) Waterproofing membrane: Liquid boot or approved masticequivalent. (2) Gravel: Clean, crushed, 3 4 to 11
2 inch.
(3) Filter fabric: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent.
(4) Pipe: 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down).
(5) Weep hole: For CMU walls, Omit grout every other block, at or slightly above finished surface. For reinforced concrete walls, minimum 2-inch diameter weep holesspaced at 20 foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls.
(6) Clean sand backfill: Must have sand equivalent value (S.E.) of 35 or greater; can be densified by water jetting upon approval by geotechnical engineer.
(7) Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width using level fill or cut natural earth materials, an additional "heel " drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. (8) Native backfill: If E.I. <21 and S.E. >35 then all sand requirements also may not be required and will be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant.
(6) Clean
sand backfill
H
±12 inches
H/2
minimum
Heel
width
(7) Footing
Footing and wall
design by others
Structural footing or
settlement-sensitive improvement
Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 65
)RUVHOHFWEDFNÞOOWKHVXEGUDLQÞOWHUPDWHULDOshould extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot EHKLQGWKHEDVHRIWKHZDOOVDQGXSZDUGDWOHDVWIRRW)RUQDWLYHEDFNÞOOWKDWKDVDQ(, up to 20 and P.I. up to 14, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials should be used behind the wall. This material should be continuous (i.e., full length) behind the wall, and it should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Alternative “A”). For limited-DFFHVVDQGFRQÞQHGDUHDV
SDQHO
GUDLQDJHEHKLQGWKHZDOOVKRXOGEHFRQVWUXFWHG
in accordance with Detail 2 (Alternative “B”). Materials with an Expansion Index (E.I.) greater than 20 and a P.I. greater than 14 VKRXOGQRWEHXVHGDVEDFNÞOOIRUUHWDLQLQJZDOOV$OWKRXJK QRWDQWLFLSDWHGLIWKHUHWDLQHGVRLOVDUHH[SDQVLYHEDFNÞOODQGGUDLQDJHEHKLQGWKHUHWDLQLQJ ZDOOVKRXOGFRQIRUPZLWK'HWDLO
$OWHUQDWLYHq&r
5HWDLQLQJZDOOEDFNÞOOVKRXOGEHXQLIRUPO\
moisture conditioned to at least the soil’s optimum moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).

Subdrain outlets should consist of minimum 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS drain pipes spaced no greater than about 100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end of the wall. The sole use of weep holes in walls higher than 2 feet, is not recommended. 7KHVXUIDFHRIWKHEDFNÞOOVKRXOGEHVHDOHGE\SDYHPHQWRUWKHWRS LQFKHVRIWKHEDFNÞOO should consist of compacted native soil (E.I. ൑ 50). Proper surface drainage should also be provided.

Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions
Site retaining walls are anticipated to be supported by foundations designed in accordance ZLWKWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQWKLVUHSRUW6KRXOGZDOOIRRWLQJVWUDQVLWLRQIURPFRPSDFWHGÞOO to old paralic deposits, the wall designer may specify either:
a) 7KHRYHUH[FDYDWLRQDQGUHSODFHPHQWRIWKHROGSDUDOLFGHSRVLWVZLWKFRPSDFWHGÞOO to at least 2 feet below the bearing surface elevation of the wall footing and for a minimum horizontal distance of 2H, from the point of transition, where “H” equals the height of the wall.
b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1 »360 for a distance of 2H on
either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer’s/wall designer’s recommendations, regardless of whether or not transition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into unweathered old paralic deposits (i.e., deepened footings).
,IWUDQVLWLRQVIURPFRPSDFWHGÞOOWRROGSDUDOLFdeposits transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), the wall designer should follow recommendation “a” (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 66

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN

AND CONSTRUCTION
Shoring of Excavations
Temporary cantilevered shoring systems, deriving passive support from reinforced soldier piles (i.e. typically steel “H” beams placed in drilled excavations and encased concrete, with timber, steel, or concrete lagging), can be used to retain adjacent property or existing improvements during the planned and remedial earthwork. Shoring of excavations is typically performed by specialty contractors with knowledge of the City of Solana Beach ordinances, and current building codes, as well as the local area soil conditions.

Since the design of shoring systems is sensitive to surcharge pressures behind the H[FDYDWLRQ ZH UHFRPPHQG WKDW WKLV RIÞFH EH FRQVXOWHG LI XQXVXDO ORDG FRQGLWLRQV DUH uncovered during the placement/installation of the shoring. To that end, GSI should perform ÞHOGUHYLHZVGXULQJVKRULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ7KLVZRXOGLQFOXGHORJJLQJWKHGULOOHGH[FDYDWLRQV for soldier pile installation and periodic reviews of survey monitoring data. Care should be exercised when excavating into the onsite soils, especially near property lines and existing improvements, since caving or sloughing of the soils may cause runs extending into the adjacent properties. Observation of soldier pile excavations and special inspections/testing should be performed during shoring construction.

Shoring of the excavation is the responsibility of the contractor. Extreme caution should be undertaken to reduce damage to existing improvements caused by settlement or reduction of lateral support. Accordingly, we recommend a system of surveying and monitoring until the permanent design grade is achieved, in order to evaluate the effects of the shoring on the existing improvements the system is intended to retain. Pre-construction photographic and video documentation are also advised. Unless incorporated into the shoring design, FRQVWUXFWLRQHTXLSPHQWVWRUDJHRUWUDIÞFDQGVRLORUEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVWRFNSLOHVVKRXOGQRW occur within “H” of the top of shored excavations (where “H” equals the height of the retained earth). Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away IURP WKH WRS RI VKRUHG H[FDYDWLRQV $OO DSSOLFDEOH VXUFKDUJH IURP YHKLFXODU WUDIÞF DQG existing structures within “H” of a shored excavation should be evaluated.

Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring Design

1. Pressure diagrams showing the recommended application of active and passive earth pressures, and uniform and live load surcharges on temporary shoring systems are illustrated on Figure 11.

2. The active pressure recommended for temporary shoring design may be computed by the triangular pressure distribution shown on Figure 11.

3. Passive pressure recommended for the design of temporary shoring may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a given density shown on Figure 11.

Item K.2
x²
$6&
),*85(
Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 68

4. The above criteria assume the absence of soils with an E.I. > 50 behind the shoring and that hydrostatic pressure is not allowed to accumulate behind the shoring.

5. These recommendations are for a temporary shoring system with retained soil heights up to approximately 20 feet. Restraining elements, bracing, or the use of walers or rakers would likely be necessary for shoring of greater heights. The use of lateral resisting elements such as tiebacks or soil nails for shoring near the property lines may be infeasible unless permission is granted to extend these components onto adjacent properties.

6. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the shoring. This pressure does not include other superimposed loading imparted by traffic, structures, expansive soils, earthquakes, or adverse geologic conditions. Traffic surcharge for shoring should be modeled as a minimum 60 psf/ft load for light passenger vehicle traffic and at least 200 psf/ft for heavy (HS20) axle loads in the upper 5 feet of the shoring. These surcharges would apply if traffic will occur within “H” of the back of the shoring (where “H” equals the height of the retained earth). It is not recommended to allow sloping surcharge (other than level backfill) within a distance of “H” behind the shoring system from either stockpiled soils, stockpiled building materials, or temporary/permanent graded slopes, where “H” equals the height of the retained earth. Steeper slope gradients (more than level) will increase the equivalent fluid pressure for shoring design, significantly, and increase shoring costs. Regrading, if possible, is recommended prior to shoring installation to reduce the potential for sloping surcharge.

7. The shoring system should be designed such that the maximum lateral deformation at the top of the soldier pile does not exceed 1 inch. The maximum lateral deformation of the soldier piles at the bottom of the shoring wall should not exceed ½ inch.

8. The design of restraining elements, walers, bracing, and rakers should be provided by the project structural consultant/shoring designer. Upon request, this office can provide geotechnical parameters for the design of such.

Shoring Construction Recommendations

1. The excavation and installation of the soldier piles should be observed and documented by the project geotechnical consultant to further evaluate the geologic conditions within the influence of the shoring and to ensure the soldier pile construction conforms to the requirements of the shoring plan.

2. The drilled excavations for soldier piles should be straight and plumb. The contractor should periodically recheck the drilled excavation for plumbness, especially if oversized rock constituents and debris are encountered.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 69

3. Casing should be provided in drilled excavations if excessive groundwater or caving conditions are encountered. The bottom of the casing should be at least 4 feet below the top of the concrete as the concrete is placed and the casing is withdrawn.

DewaterLQJ PD\ EH UHTXLUHG IRU FRQFUHWH SODFHPHQW LI VLJQLÞFDQW VHHSDJH RU groundwater is encountered during construction. This should be considered during project planning.

4. The exact tip elevation of the soldier piles should be clearly indicated on the shoring plans.

5. All concrete should be delivered through a tremie immediately after the approval of the drilled excavation and steel placement. Care should be taken to prevent striking the walls of the drilled excavations with the tremie during concrete placement.

Concrete should not be allowed to free fall more than 5 feet. “Tailgating” concrete is not recommended.

6. Proper spacing (minimum of 3 inches) between the steel reinforcement and the side walls, and bottoms of the drilled excavations should be provided.

7. The height of exposed, unsaturated soils during vertical excavation should not exceed 3 to 4 feet. Continuous lagging of excavations is recommended in saturated soils.

The entire excavation should receive lagging prior to the end of each workday.

Alternatively, loose soil may be used as a temporary buttress located below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down and toward the excavation from the top of the unsupported soils. No excavation should be left unsupported overnight.

8. TKH ODJJLQJ VKRXOG EH EDFNÞOOHG with SHD JUDYHO WKDW LV GHQVLÞHG E\ YLEUDWRU\ methods, grout, or a lean sand-cement slurry.

9. A complete and accurate record of all soldier pile locations, depths, concrete strengths, quantity of concrete per pile, etc. should be maintained by the special inspector and geotechnical consultant. The shoring design engineer should be QRWLÞHGRIDQ\unusual conditions encountered during installation.

Monitoring of Shoring

1. A pre-construction meeting should be held between the owner/developer, Project General Contractor, Shoring Contractor, Civil Engineer/Surveyor, Shoring Designer, and Geotechnical Consultant to discuss shoring installation and pre-construction surveys/documentation.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 70

2. The Shoring Designer or their designee should make periodic inspections of the construction site for the purpose of observing the installation of the shoring system and monitoring of the survey.

3. Monitoring points should be established at the tops and bottoms of selected soldier piles and at intermediate intervals, as considered appropriate by the Geotechnical Engineer and the Shoring Design Engineer.

4. Control points should be established outside the area of influence of the shoring system to ensure the accuracy of the monitoring readings.

5. Initial monitoring and photographic documentation of all existing improvements within 2H of the shoring, where “H” equals the retained soil height, should be performed prior to any excavation.

6. Once the excavation has commenced, periodic readings should be taken weekly until WKHH[FDYDWLRQLVEDFNÞOOHGWRWKHGHVLJQJUDGH,IWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKHVKRULQJ system is found to be within established guidelines, the Shoring Engineer may permit the periodic readings to be biweekly. Permission to conduct biweekly readings should be provided by the Shoring Designer in writing, and be distributed to the Project Geotechnical Consultant, Structural Consultant, Civil Consultant, and the Shoring Contractor. Once initiated, biweekly readings should continue until the excavation is EDFNÞOOHGWRWKHGHVLJQJUDGH7KHUHDIWHUUHDGLQJVFDQEHPDGHPRQWKO\$GGLWLRQDO readings should be taken when requested by the Special Inspector, Shoring Designer, Structural Consultant, or Geotechnical Consultant.

7. Monitoring readings should be submitted to the Shoring Designer and Geotechnical Consultant within three (3) business days after they are conducted. Monitoring readings should be accurate to within 0.01 foot. Results should be submitted in tabular format showing at least the initial date of monitoring and reading, the current monitoring date and reading, and the difference (delta) between the two readings.

8. If the total cumulative horizontal or vertical movement (from the start of shoring construction) of a nearby existing improvement or the soldier piles reaches ½ inch or 1 inch, respectively, all excavation activities should be suspended until the Geotechnical Consultant and the Shoring Designer determine the cause of movement and provide corrective measures, as necessary. Excavation should not recommence until written permission is provided by the Geotechnical Consultant and the Shoring Designer. Supplemental shoring or an earthen buttress should be installed/placed to eliminate further movement. Supplemental shoring and earthen buttress design will likely require review and approval by the Building OIÞFLDO ([FDYDWLRQ VKRXOG QRW recommence until written permission is provided by the Building OIÞFLDO Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 71
Monitoring of Structures

1. The Contractor should complete written and photographic logs of the improvements located within two times the retained soil height from the back of the shoring, prior to shoring construction. A licensed land surveyor or the Project Civil engineer should document all existing substantial cracks (i.e., greater than ᪦ inch horizontal separation or any vertical separation) in the adjacent improvements.

2. The Contractor should monitor existing buildings and improvements for movement or cracking that may result from the adjacent shored excavation.

3. If excessive movement or visible cracking occurs, the Shoring Contractor should stop work and shore/reinforce the excavation in accordance with the Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations, and contact the Shoring Designer.

4. Monitoring of the existing, adjacent buildings and improvements should be made at reasonable intervals, as required by the Shoring Designer. Monitoring should be performed by a licensed land surveyor or the Project Civil Engineer.

5. If in the opinion of the Shoring Designer, monitoring data indicate excessive movement or other distress, all excavation should cease until the Geotechnical Engineer and the Shoring Designer investigate the situation and make recommendations for remedial actions, or allow the continuation of work.

6. All readings and measurements should be submitted to the Shoring Designer and the Geotechnical Consultant.

Deeper Excavations Adjacent to Shoring Systems
If for any reason, temporary planned or remedial excavations are needed to extend below the planned cut depth of shoring systems, the following recommendations should be followed after approval by the Shoring Designer.

1. Any temporary excavation extending below a 2:1 (h:v) plane projected down from the planned cut depth elevation at the face of the shoring should be completed using slot excavations as previously recommended herein. The slot excavations should not extend below areas of saturated soils, groundwater, or running sands without prior evaluations by the project Geotechnical Consultant. The slot excavations should be EDFNÞOOHGZLWKFRPSDFWHGÞOORUDIORZDEOHÞOOSULRUWRWKHHQGRIHDFKZRUNGD\6ORWV should not be left open overnight.

2. Survey monitoring should be performed on a continuous basis while excavations are being conducted.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 72

FLATWORK AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior concrete flatwork and other ancillary site improvements:

1. Exterior concrete slabs-on-JUDGHVKRXOGEHFDVWHQWLUHO\RQSURSHUO\FRPSDFWHGÞOO materials that have been tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant or on suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits. The subgrade area for the exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should be uniformly moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum relative density of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and to reduce the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks.

2. The exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should be cast over a non-yielding surface consisting of a 4-inch thick layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand that should be compacted and level prior to placing concrete. If soils that are very low in expansion potential are present, the rock, gravel, or sand may be omitted. This layer or the subgrade should be moisturized completely prior to placing concrete, to reduce the loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding soils.

3. Exterior concrete slabs-on-JUDGH WKDW ZLOO UHFHLYH SHGHVWULDQ WUDIÞF VKRXOG EH D minimum of 4 inches thick. Concrete driveways should be at least 6 inches thick.

Where concrete slabs are adjacent to landscape areas, the clients may consider the inclusion of thickened edges (at least 6 inches wide and 8 inches thick as measured IURPWKHERWWRPRIWKHFRQFUHWHVODE
WRUHGXFHWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQRILQÞOWUDWHGLUULJDWLRQ
water under the slabs.

4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints is recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such FUDFNLQJ DUH
D
DGG D VXIÞFLHQW DPRXQW RI UHLQIRUFLQJ VWHHO LQFUHDVLQJ WHQVLOH strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control or expansion joints to accommodate the anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion.

In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center, in two perpendicular directions. If the soils within the top 3 feet of the subgrade are very low in expansion potential, then 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 welded-wire mesh may be substituted for the rebar, provided the reinforcement is placed on chairs, at slab mid-height. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, ½ to ᪧ inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 73
every 5 feet. The slabs should be separated from the residential building foundations ZLWKH[SDQVLRQMRLQWÞOOHUPDWHULDO,QDUHDVGLUHFWO\DGMDFHQWWRDFRQWLQXRXVVRXUFH of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic.

5. 1R WUDIÞF VKRXOG EH DOORZHG XSRQ WKH QHZ FRQFUHWH VODEV XQWLO WKH\ KDYH EHHQ properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. The concrete compressive VWUHQJWK IRU FRQFUHWH VODEV WKDW ZLOO RQO\ UHFHLYH SHGHVWULDQ WUDIÞF VKRXOG EH D minimum of 2,500 psi.

6. Planters and walls should not be structurally tied to the existing portion of the residential structure and the proposed building additions.

7. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with footings tied to the perimeter building foundations in at least one direction.

8. Any free-standing or site retaining walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long.

These segments should be keyed or doweled together. Free-standing wall footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should be founded a minimum of 12 inches EHORZ WKH ORZHVW DGMDFHQW JUDGH LQWR WHVWHG DQG DSSURYHG FRPSDFWHG ÞOO GLUHFWO\ overlying suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits or at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and a minimum of 12 inches into suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits.

9. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the property should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street or approved drainage facility, or conform to Section 1804.3 of the 2022 CBC (whichever is more conservative). Drainage reversals could occur, including post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the property owners. This should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties.

10. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by concrete slabs that are incorporated into the building foundations or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erodible outlet.

11. 6KULQNDJHFUDFNVFRXOGEHFRPHH[FHVVLYHLISURSHUÞQLVKLQJDQGFXULQJSUDFWLFHVDUH not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association (PCA) Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 74

STRUCTURAL CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
The Project Architect, Structural Engineer, and Civil Engineer should review the results of the corrosion tests provided in the “Laboratory Testing” section of this report and specify the appropriate mix design for structural concrete on their respective plans. As previously stated herein, the effects of sea spray should be considered in the selection of the mix design for structural concrete.

PERMANENT POST-CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER BEST

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
$VSUHYLRXVO\LQGLFDWHGKHUHLQLQÞOWUDWLRQRIVWRUPZDWHULQWRWKHRQVLWHVRLOVIRUSHUPDQHQW post-construction storm water BMPs is not recommended from a geotechnical perspective. 6LQFHVWRUPZDWHULQÞOWUDWLRQLQWRWKHRQVLWHVRLOVLVQRWDGYLVHGDQ\proposed permanent post-construction storm water BMP should consist of a fully contained system or storm water ÞOWUDWLRQRUGHWHQWLRQEDVLQVVKRXOGUHFHLYHDQLPSHUPHDEOHOLQHUDQGDQXQGHU-drain system.

At a minimum, impermeable liners used in conjunction with storm water basins should consist of a 30-mil polyvinyl chloride (PVC) membrane that is covered by at least 12 inches of clean soil, free from rocks and debris. The impermeable liner should extend a few inches above the maximum ponding depth or 100-year flood elevation (Q100 elevation) and be anchored in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. In addition, the design and construction of storm water basins should consider the following:

1. The 30-mil impermeable liner should have the following minimum engineering properties:
6SHFLÞF*UDYLW\
$670'

JFFPLQ

7HQVLOH
$670'

(lb/in-width,
min); Elongation at Break (ASTM D882): 380 (%, min); Modulus (ASTM D882): 30 (lb/in-width, min.); and Tear Strength (ASTM D1004): 8 (lb/in, min); Seam Shear Strength (ASTM D882) 58.4 (lb/in, min); Seam Peel Strength (ASTM D882) 15 (lb/in, min).

2. Subdrains for the under-drain system should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 or SDR 35 perforated drain pipe with the perforations oriented down. 7KHGUDLQSLSHVKRXOGEHVOHHYHGZLWKÞOWHUVRFNRUZUDSSHGLQÞOWHUIDEULF 0LUDÞ1
or approved equivalent).

3. Areas adjacent to, or within, the storm water basins that are subject to inundation should be properly protected against scouring, undermining, and erosion, in accordance with the recommendations of the design engineer.

4. Long-term stability of the basin slopes will require them to be constructed at gradients no steeper than 3:1 (h:v). Alternatively, the sides of the basin may be supported by Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 75
retaining structures/walls designed for the appropriate earth and hydrostatic pressures. Footings for the retaining walls should extend at least 2 feet below the bottom of the basin into earth materials deemed suitable for bearing by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. Refer to the “Retaining Wall Design Parameters” section of this report for other geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of retaining walls.

5. Due to the potential for piping and adverse seepage conditions, a burrowing rodent control program should also be implemented onsite.

6. Any trenches for inlet/outlet piping or other subsurface utilities, located within or near WKHSURSRVHGEDVLQVPD\EHFRPHVDWXUDWHGDQGLQGXFHEDFNÞOOVHWWOHPHQW7KLVLV due to the potential for piping, water migration, or seepage along the trench line bDFNÞOO 8QGHUJURXQG XWLOLW\ WUHQFKHV DGMDFHQW WR DQG ZLWKLQ EDVLQV VKRXOG EH EDFNÞOOHGZLWKD-sack sand-cement slurry.

7. 6HSDUDWLRQJHRWH[WLOHVVOXUU\EDFNÞOORUFKRNHUFRXUVHVVKRXOGEHXVHGWR UHGXFH WKHSRWHQWLDOIRUWKHSLSLQJRIÞQHVRLOSDUWLFOHVLQWRRSHQ-JUDGHGJUDYHOEDFNÞOOOD\HUV in the trenches.

8. The use of storm water basins above or near existing or planned underground utilities that might degrade/corrode with the introduction of water/seepage should be avoided.

Alternatively, a corrosion consultant may provide recommendations for corrosion protection.

9. No part of the basins should occur below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down and away from building or retaining wall foundations (existing or proposed) and the edge of pavements, or within 50 feet of the tops and toes of slopes.

DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Planting and Irrigation
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering should be avoided as it can adversely affect coastal bluff stability and the onsite and adjacent site improvements, and cause perched groundwater conditions. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Using plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to all interested/affected parties.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 76
Drainage
Adequate surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, slopes (including the coastal bluff), and hardscape. Surface GUDLQDJHVKRXOGEHVXIÞFLHQWWRSUHYHQWSRQGLQJRIZDWHUDQ\ZKHUHRQWKH subject property, and especially near the coastal bluff edge, the existing portion of the residential structure, the proposed building additions, retaining walls, and pavements. Surface drainage should be carefully considered during landscaping. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within the subject property should be provided and maintained at all times.

Water should be directed away from the coastal bluff edge, the foundations of the existing portion of the residential structure, the proposed building additions, and retaining walls, and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. Whenever possible, surface drainage should be above adjacent paved areas. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow onto adjacent properties nor cause erosion. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to the existing portion of the residential structure, the proposed building additions, and retaining walls. Downspouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated.

Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for reducing this effect could be provided upon request.

Landscape Maintenance
Over-watering the landscape areas can adversely affect the existing and proposed site improvements and the stability of the coastal bluff. We recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to the existing portion of the residential structure, the proposed building additions, and retaining walls be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be used. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from the structures or any surface improvements (i.e., pavements or flatwork). If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottoms of the planters should be provided with a moisture retarder WRUHGXFHRUHOLPLQDWHLQÞOWUDWLRQRILUULJDWLRQZater into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative density.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 77
Tile Flooring
Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab-on-grade floor below the tile, DOWKRXJKVPDOOFUDFNVLQDIORRUVODEPD\QRWEHVLJQLÞFDQW7KHUHIRUHWKHGHVLJQHUVKRXOG consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slab-on-grade floors where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile, such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between the tile and concrete slabs-on-grade.

Subsurface and Surface Water
6XEVXUIDFH DQG VXUIDFH ZDWHU DUH JHQHUDOO\ DQWLFLSDWHG WR QRW VLJQLÞFDQWO\ DIIHFW VLWH development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are properly LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR ÞQDO GHVLJQ DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQGWKDW SUXGHQW VXUIDFH DQG VXEVXUface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to meteorological or climatic factors, irrigation practices, poor drainage conditions, or damaged wet underground utilities, and should be anticipated. Should SHUFKHGJURXQGZDWHUFRQGLWLRQVGHYHORSWKLVRIÞFHFRXOGDVVHVVWKHDIIHFWHGDUHD V
DQG
provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions.

Groundwater conditions are subject to change over time.

Foundation Trench Excavation
$OOIRXQGDWLRQH[FDYDWLRQVVKRXOGEHREVHUYHGE\DUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKLVÞUPVXEVHTXHQWWR trenching and prior to concrete form, steel reinforcement, and concrete placement. The purpose of the observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible soils are exposed within the foundation excavation, a deeper foundation or removal and recompaction of the bearing soils would be recommended at that time.

Trenching
Considering the nature of the onsite soils, caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and at a minimum, conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codesUnderground
8WLOLW\7UHQFK%DFNÞOO

1. $OOXQGHUJURXQGXWLOLW\WUHQFKEDFNÞOOVKRXOGEHXQLIRUPO\EURXJKWWRDWOHDVWRSWLPXP moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative density of 90 Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 78
percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Observation, selective probing, DQGÞHOG-density testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results.

2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within, areas extending below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down from the outside bottom edge of the foundation, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Sand EDFNÞOOXQOHVVH[FDYDWHGIURPWKHWUHQFKVKRXOGQRWEHXVHGLQWKHVHEDFNÞOODUHDV Field density testing and observations, along with selective probing, should be conducted to evaluate the desired results.

3. Where underground utility piping is located below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down from the outside, bottom edge of foundations, the utility trench should be EDFNÞOOHG with a 1-sack sand-cement slurry. The utility pipe may need to be anchored or ballasted to prevent it from floating during slurry placement.

4. Prior to underground utility installation, the bottom of underground utility trenches, exposing unsuitable soils should be overexcavated to expose suitable old paralic GHSRVLWVDQGWKHQEHEDFNÞOOHGWRWKHSODQQHGFXWHOHYDWLRQZLWKWKHH[FDYDWHGVRLOV that have been uniformly moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent

5. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.

6. Underground utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the foundation or grade beam using a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the foundation or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING

GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that observation and testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages:
x During planned and remedial grading.
x 'XULQJVLJQLÞFDQWH[FDYDWLRQ
LHGHHSHUWKDQIHHW

x During drilling for shoring soldier piles, if shoring is installed. x After the excavation of building and retaining wall footings, prior to the placement of concrete form work, reinforcing steel, or concrete.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 79
x Prior to installing underground utilities within trenches. x 'XULQJWKHSODFHPHQWDQGFRPSDFWLRQRIEDFNÞOOIRUXQGHUJURXQGXWLOLW\WUHQFKHV x During the compaction of the pavement/flatwork subgrade and compaction of any aggregate base course.
x 'XULQJUHWDLQLQJZDOOVXEGUDLQFRQVWUXFWLRQSULRUWREDFNÞOO x 'XULQJWKHSODFHPHQWDQGFRPSDFWLRQRIUHWDLQLQJZDOOEDFNÞOO x 3ULRUWRLPSRUWLQJÞOOPDWHULDOVDQGXVLQJWKHRQVLWHVRLOVIRUUHWDLQLQJZDOOEDFNÞOO x When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report.

A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and to comply with code requirements.

OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-VSHFLÞFGHWDLOV As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and improvement’s GHVLJQHU VKRXOG FRQÞUP WR *6, DQG WKH JRYHUQLQJ DJHQF\ LQ ZULWLQJ WKDW WKH SURSRVHG foundations and other improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement, H[SDQVLRQFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGGHVLJQFULWHULDVSHFLÞHGKHUHLQ Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field W.O. 7826-A1-SC
617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach June 26, 2025
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 80

PLAN REVIEW
Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, landscaping, etc.), VKRXOGEHUHYLHZHGE\WKLVRIÞFHSULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQVRWKDWFRQVWUXFWLRQLVLQDFFRUGDQFH with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and further geotechnical studies may be warranted.

LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and used for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.

Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Unless otherwise directed by the clients, all soil samples collected for this study will be disposed 30 days after the issuance of this report.

Item K.2

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES
Item K.2

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES
Ally, R.B., 2004, GSIP2 Ice core temperature and accumulation data, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Palaeoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2004-013.

NOAA/NBDC Paleoclimatology program, Boulder CO, USA.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gis p2_temp_accum_a lley2000.txt
American Concrete Institute, 2022, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19[22]): reported by ACI Committee 318, reapproved September. _____, 2019, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19), commentary on building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19): reported by the ACI Committee 318, dated August.
_____, 2015, Guide to concrete floor and slab construction (ACI 302.1R-15); reported by ACI Committee 302, dated June.
_____, 2014a, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14), and commentary (ACI 318R-14): reported by ACI Committee 318, dated September. _____, 2014b, Building code requirements for concrete thin shells (ACI 318.2-14), and commentary (ACI 318.2R-14), dated September.
$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\IRU7HVWLQJDQG0DWHULDOV6WDQGDUGVSHFLÞFDWLRQIRUSODVWLFZDWHU YDSRU UHWDUGHUV XVHG LQ FRQWDFW ZLWK VRLO RU JUDQXODU ÞOO XQGHU FRQFUHWH VODEV (ASTM E1745-17), reapproved 2023.
_____, 2011, Standard practice of selection, design, installation, and inspection of water YDSRU UHWDUGHUV XVHG LQ FRQWDFW ZLWK HDUWK RU JUDQXODU ÞOO XQGHU FRQFUHWH VODEV (ASTM E1643-11) reapproved 2017.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2018a, Supplement 1 to minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7- ÞUVWSULQWLQJ
dated December 13.
_____, 2018b, Errata for minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16), by ASCE, dated July 9.
_____, 2017, Minimum design loads and associated criteria and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, published online June 19.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field Appendix A
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 2
Ashton, A.D., Walkden, M.J., and Dickson, M.E., 2011, Equilibrium responses of cliffed coasts to changes in the rate of sea level rise: Marine Geology, 284 (2011), pp. 217-229.

Benumof, B.T. and Griggs, G.B., 1999. The dependence of seacliff erosion rates on material properties and physical processes: San Diego County, California in Shore & Beach, Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Volume 67, No. 4, pp. 29-41.

Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: a revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time, IGBP PAGES and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Data Contribution Series # 2002-051, NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder Colorado, USA.

Blake, Thomas F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version. _____, 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs; Updated to May 20, 2021, Windows 95/98 version.

Bokal and Sneed Architects, 2022, Site plan for: Field residence, 617 W. Circle Drive, Solana Beach 92075, 1 sheet, scale: ᪦ inch = 1 foot, job No.: 2014, dated March 8.

Box, J.E., Yang, L., Bromwhich, D.H., and Bai, L., 2009, Greenland ice sheet surface air temperature variability: 1840-2007*. American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate Vol 22 pp 4029-4049.

Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell K.W., and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical ground motion: Characteristics, relationship with horizontal component, and building-code implications; Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data, September 15, Oakland, pp. 23-49.

California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, based on the 2021 International Building Code, effective January 1, 2023.

California Coastal Commission, 2024, Sea level policy guidance; interpretive guidelines for addressing sea level rise in local coastal programs and coastal development permits, third update adopted November 13.

California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake fault zones, a guide for government agencies, property owners/developers, and geoscience practitioners for assessing fault rupture hazards in California, Special Publication 42, revised.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field Appendix A
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 3
California Sea Level Rise Science Task Force, California Ocean Protection Council, California Ocean Science Trust, 2024, California sea level rise guidance: 2024 science and policy update.

Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003, The revised 2002 California probabilistic seismic hazard maps, dated June, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/Documents/20 02_CA_Hazard_Maps.pdf.

Carter, R., 2011, Climate: the counter consensus, Stacey International, London, England.

City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, 2020, Information bulletin / public - building code, reference no.: LABC 1610.1, 1807.2, document no.: P/BC 2020-083, dated January 1.

City of Solana Beach, 2018, Local Coastal Plan, Land Use Plan, amended November.

CLIMAP, 1976, The Surface of the Ice-Age Earth, Science, 191, 1131-1137.

Clintel Foundation, 2023, The frozen climate views of the IPCC.

Curray, J.R., 1961, Late Quaternary sea level: a discussion, Geological Society of America Bulletin 72, p. 1707-12.
_____, 1960, Sediments and history of Holocene transgression, continental shelf, northwest Gulf of Mexico, p. 221-266, in F.P. Shepard, F.B. Phlefer, and Tj. H. van Andel (eds), Recent Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico, 1951-1958, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 394 p.
'HDQ5*

(TXLOLEULXPEHDFKSURÞOHV
FKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGDSSOLFDWLRQVin Journal of
Coastal Research, 7(1), p 53-45, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, ISSN 0749-0208, dated June.

Doyle, T.W., Chivoiu, B., and Enwright, N.M., eds, 2015, Sea-level rise modeling handbook:
resource guide for coastal land managers, engineers, and scientists, USGS Professional Paper 1815, dated August.

Emery, K.O. and Aubrey, D.G., 1991, Sea levels, land levels, and tide gauges: Springer - 9HUODJ3XEOLVKHUV1HZ<RUN1<SÞJXUHV
(PHU\.2DQG.XKQ**
6HDFOLIIV
WKHLUSURFHVVHVSURÞOHVDQGFODVVLÞFDWLRQ

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no 7.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field Appendix A
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 4
Fairchild Aerial Surveys, 1932, Stereoscopic aerial photographs, flight: C-1980, frame Nos.:
66 and 67, 1:9,600-scale, dated February 28.

Gregory, G.H., 2023, GEOSTASE slope stability analysis software, version 4.30.32, dated September.

Hapke, C.J. and Reid, D.; 2007, National assessment of shoreline change part 4: Historical coastal cliff retreat along the California coast: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1133.

Hein, C.J., Fitzgerald, D.m., Thadeu de Menezes, J., Cleary, W.J., Klein, A.H.F., and Albernaz, M.B., 2014, Coastal response to late-stage transgression and sea-level highstand, in Bulletin, v. 126, no. 3/4, p. 459-480, dated March/April, by Geological Society of America.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2023, Synthesis report of the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6).
_____, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R., 0DWWKHZV 7. 0D\FRFN 7 :DWHUÞHOG 2 <HOHNÄL 5 <X DQG % =KRX HGV
@
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2391 pp.

BBBBB

UHÞQHPHQW WR WKH ,3&& JXLGHOLQHV IRU QDWLRQDO JUHHQKRXVH JDV inventories, Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize, S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P., and Federici, S. (eds.), IPCC Switzerland.

BBBBB &OLPDWH FKDQJH
WKH VFLHQWLÞF EDVLV eds., Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C.A. 893 pp.

BBBBB

&OLPDWHFKDQJHWKH,3&&VFLHQWLÞFDVVHVVPHQWSS Jouzel, J., ; Masson-Delmotte, V., 2007: EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800K Yr deuterium data and temperature estimates. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.683655, Supplement to: Jouzel, J, Masson-Delmotte, V., Cattani, O., Dreyfus, G., Falourd, S., Hoffmann, G., Minster, B., Nouet, J., Barnola, JM., Chappellaz, J.A., Fischer, H., Gallet, J.C., Johnsen, S.J., Leuenberger, M.C. Loulergue, L., Luethi, D., Oerter, H., Parrenin, F., Raisbeck, G.M., Raynaud, D., Schilt, A., Schwander, J., Selmo, E., Souchez, R., Spahni, R., Stauffer, B., Steffensen, J.P. Stenni, B., Stocker, T.F., Tison, Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field Appendix A
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 5
JL., Werner, M., Wolff, E.W., 2007, Orbital and millennial Antarctic climate variability over the past 800,000 years. Science, 317(5839), 793-797.

JP Engineering, 2020, Topography and record boundary, 617 W. Circle Drive, A.P.N. 263- 021-03-00, 1 sheet, 10-scale dated April 28.

Kanare, H.M., 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Engineering Bulletin 119, Portland Cement Association.

Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200, Section A, Western San Diego Metropolitan Area, Del Mar, La Jolla, and Point Loma, 7½ minute quadrangles.

Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2008, Geologic map of the San Diego 30' by 60' quadrangle, California, map no. 3, 1:100,000-scale.

Kern, J.P., 1977, Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego California, Geological Society of American Bulletin 88.

Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1984, Sea Cliffs, beaches and coastal valleys of San Diego County: some amazing histories and some horrifying implications: University of California Press, Berkeley, California, and London, England.

Limber, P.W., Barnard, P.L., Vitousek, S., and Erikson, Li, H., 2018, A model ensemble for projecting multidecadal coastal cliff retreat during the 21st century, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, pp. 1566-1589, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004401.

National Research Council, 2012, Sea-level rise for the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: past, present, and future, Washington DC: the National Academies Press.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2017, Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United States, NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083, dated January.

Nerem, R.S., 2005, The Record of Sea Level Change from Satellite Measurements: What Have We Learned?, Bowie Lecture, Amer. Geophys. U., Accessed in June 2010.

Accessible at https://sealevel.colorado.edu/.

Nerem, R.S., Beckley, B.D., Fasullo, J.T., Hamlington, B.D., Masters, D., and Mitchm, G.T., 2018, Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, pp. 2022-2025, dated February 27.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field Appendix A
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 6
Nerem, R.S., Leuliette, E., and Cazenave, A., 2006, Present-day sea-level change: a review, in ScienceDirect, dated October 17.

Norris, R.M. and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, second edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5RIIHUV 3' DQG %HGURVVLDQ 7/ *HRORJLF FRPSLODWLRQ RI 4XDWHUQDU\ VXUÞFLDO deposits in southern California, onshore portion of the San Diego 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, plate 14 California Geological Survey Special Report 217, 1:100,000-scale, dated July.
6HHG(YDOXDWLRQDQGPLWLJDWLRQRIVRLOOLTXHIDFWLRQKD]DUGqHYDOXDWLRQRIÞHOGGDWDDQG procedures for evaluating the risk of triggering (or inception) of liquefaction”, in Geotechnical earthquake engineering; short course, San Diego, California, April 8-9.

Seed, H. B. and Whitman, R. V., 1970, Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads, ASCE Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147.

Shakelton, N.J., and Opdyke, N.D., 1976, Oxygen - isotope and paleomagnetic stratigraphy RI3DFLÞF FRUH9-239, late Pliocene to Latest Pleistocene, Geological Society of America, Memoir 145.
6RZHUV DQG 6RZHUV

8QLÞHG VRLO FODVVLÞFDWLRQ V\VWHP
$IWHU 8 6 :DWHUZD\V
Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York.

State of California, 2025, Civil Code, Sections 896 et seq.

Sweet, W.V., B.D. Hamlington, R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, P.L. Barnard, D. Bekaert, W. Brooks, M. Craghan, G. Dusek, T. Frederikse, G. Garner, A.S. Genz, J.P. Krasting, E. Larour, D. Marcy, J.J. Marra, J. Obeysekera, M. Osler, M. Pendleton, D. Roman, L. Schmied, W. Veatch, K.D. White, and C. Zuzak, 2022: Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines. NOAA Technical Report NOS 01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD, 111 pp. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01- global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf.

Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego 0HWURSROLWDQDUHD6DQ'LHJR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD/DQGVOLGHKD]DUGLGHQWLÞFDWLRQPDS no. 35, Plate 35G, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open File Report 95-04.

Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The geomorphology of rock coasts: Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Item K.2

Paul and Valerie Field Appendix A
File:z:\cb\7800\7826a1.pga Page 7
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2015, Encinitas-Solana Beach coastal storm damage reduction project, San Diego County, California, Appendix C, geotechnical engineering, dated December.
_____, 2013, Incorporating sea level change in civil works programs, ER 100-2-8162, regulation No.: 1100-2-8162, dated December 31.

Walkden, M.J. and Dickson, M.E., 2008, Equilibrium erosion of soft rock shores with a shallow or absent beach under increased sea level rise: Marine Geology, vol. 251/1-2, pp. 75-

84. :DONGHQ0-DQG+DOO-:$SUHGLFWLYH0HVRVFDOHPRGHORIWKHHURVLRQDQGSURÞOH development of soft rock shores, in Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 535-563.

Wrightstone, G., 2017, Inconvenient facts, Silver Crown Productions.

Wu, H., Fang, Q, Hinnov, L.A., Zhang, S., Yang, T., Shi, M. and Li, H., 2023, Astronomical time scale for the Paleozoic Era, Earth-Science Reviews, vol. 244, dated September, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104510
Young, A.P.,. R.E. Flick, W.C. O'Reilly, D.B. Chadwick, W.F. Crampton, J.J. Helly, 2014, Estimating Cliff Retreat in Southern California Considering Sea Level Rise Using a Sand Balance Approach. MarineGeology, 348, p. 5-26.

Yu, S.Y, Berglund, B.E., Sandgren, P., and Lambeck, K., 2007, Evidence for a rapid sea-level rise 7600 yr ago, in Geology, v. 35, no. 10, p. 891-894, dated October, by Geological Society of America.

Item K.2

APPENDIX B

BORING LOGS

Item K.2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group
Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA
Coarse-Grained Soils
More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve
Gravels
50% or more of
coarse fraction
retained on No. 4 sieve
Clean
Gravels
GW Well-graded gravels and gravelsand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test Penetration
Resistance N Relative
(blows/ft) Density
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium
30 - 50 Dense
> 50 Very dense
GP
Poorly graded gravels and
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
Gravel
with
GM Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
Sands
more than 50% of
coarse fraction
passes No. 4 sieve
Clean
Sands
SW Well-graded sands and gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands and
gravelly sands, little or no fines
Sands
with
Fines
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay
mixtures
Fine-Grained Soils
50% or more passes No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit
50% or less
ML
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands
Standard Penetration Test
Unconfined
Penetration Compressive
Resistance N Strength
(blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft2
)
<2 Very Soft <0.25
2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050
4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00
8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00
>30 Hard >4.00
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit
greater than 50%
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sands or silts,
elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly
organic soils
3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
Unified Soil
Classification Cobbles
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
coarse fine coarse medium fine

MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS
Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 % C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 - 10 % S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 - 25 % B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 % •• Groundwater Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT:

Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc.

EXAMPLE:

Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets.

File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1
Item K.2
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 62
50/5½"
50/6"
82 50/5½"
50/4"
SM/
SC
SP
SM
SM
SP
119.4
107.1

97.9 109.8
103.5

98.0 5.2

4.0 3.7

2.5 3.1

2.9 35.9

19.7 14.3

12.8 13.7

11.1 ARTIFICIAL FILL - UNDOCUMENTED:
@ 0' Concrete pavement.
@ 1/3' SILTY SAND and CLAYEY SAND, reddish yellow, moist, medium dense; fine to medium grained.

QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM:
@ 2' SAND, dark brown, damp, medium dense; fine grained, traces of SILT.

WEATHERED QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 3' SILTY SAND, brown and dark brown, damp, loose; fine grained.

QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 4¼' SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, dense; fine grained, lightly cemented.
@ 5' SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, dense; fine grained, traces of CLAY, lightly cemented.
@ 10' SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, dry, dense; fine grained. @ 15' SAND, dark yellowish brown, gray, and reddish yellow, dry, dense; fine to medium grained (disturbed sample).
@ 20' SAND, dark gray and light gray, dry, dense; fine to medium grained.
@ 21¼' SAND, brownish gray, damp, dense; fine grained.
@ 25' SAND, light brown and light gray, dry, dense; fine to medium grained.
@ 30' SAND, light gray, dry, dense; fine grained.

GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: Field
617 W. Circle Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075
W.O. 7826-A1-SC BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF
DATE EXCAVATED 3-5-25 LOGGED BY: RBB APPROX. ELEV.: 70'NAVD88 SAMPLE METHOD: Modified California Sampler - 140 lbs. Hammer @ 30" Drop Standard Penetration Test Groundwater
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage
GeoSoils, Inc.

PLATE
Depth (ft.)Bulk
Sample Undisturbed
Blows/Ft.USCS SymbolDry Unit Wt. (pcf)Moisture (%)Saturation (%) Material Description
3 B-2
Item K.2
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 50/4"
50/5½"
50/3"
50/3"
85 80
185
SP
SC/CL
SC
103.1

94.1 93.9

85.6 94.5

99.0 99.7

2.2 2.8

4.3 4.1

5.8 21.3

13.2 9.5

9.7 15.0

11.5 20.4

84.1 53.2
@ 35' SAND, light gray and dark gray, dry, dense; fine grained. @ 40' SAND, light gray, dry, dense; fine to medium grained. @ 45' SAND, light gray, dry, dense; predominately fine grained, traces of coarse grains, traces of subrounded gravel.

TERTIARY TORREY SANDSTONE:
@ 50' SANDSTONE, light gray and light yellowish brown, dry, dense; fine to medium grained (incomplete sample).
@ 55' SANDSTONE, light yellowish brown, dry, very dense; fine to medium grained.

TERTIARY DELMAR FORMATION:
@ 60' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, dark yellowish brown and SANDY
CLAYSTONE, gray, wet, very dense/hard; interbedded.
@ 65' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, brownish gray, moist, very dense; fine grained, moderately cemented (concretion).

Approximate total depth = 65½'
No groundwater encountered.

GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: Field
617 W. Circle Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075
W.O. 7826-A1-SC BORING B-1 SHEET 2 OF
DATE EXCAVATED 3-5-25 LOGGED BY: RBB APPROX. ELEV.: 70'NAVD88 SAMPLE METHOD: Modified California Sampler - 140 lbs. Hammer @ 30" Drop Standard Penetration Test Groundwater
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage
GeoSoils, Inc.

PLATE
Depth (ft.)Bulk
Sample Undisturbed
Blows/Ft.USCS SymbolDry Unit Wt. (pcf)Moisture (%)Saturation (%) Material Description
3 B-3
Item K.2
70 75
80 85
90 95
100
No caving encountered.

Backfilled with cement and bentonite slurry and bentonite chips.

GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: Field
617 W. Circle Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075
W.O. 7826-A1-SC BORING B-1 SHEET 3 OF
DATE EXCAVATED 3-5-25 LOGGED BY: RBB APPROX. ELEV.: 70'NAVD88 SAMPLE METHOD: Modified California Sampler - 140 lbs. Hammer @ 30" Drop Standard Penetration Test Groundwater
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage
GeoSoils, Inc.

PLATE
Depth (ft.)Bulk
Sample Undisturbed
Blows/Ft.USCS SymbolDry Unit Wt. (pcf)Moisture (%)Saturation (%) Material Description
3 B-4
Item K.2
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 SM
SP
SM
SM
SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL - UNDOCUMENTED:
@ 0' SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, loose; fine to coarse grained, abundant subangular and subrounded gravel up to ¾" in dimension.
@ 1½' SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; fine to medium grained, traces of SILT.
@ 2' SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, loose; fine to medium grained, traces of SILT.

QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM:
@ 2½' SILTY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, loose; fine grained.

WEATHERED QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 4½' SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained.

QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 4¾' SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, dense; fine grained, lightly cemented.

Approximate total depth = 5'.

No groundwater encountered.

No caving encountered.

Backfilled 3/5/25.

GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: Field
617 W. Circle Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075
W.O. 7826-A1-SC BORING HA-1 SHEET 1 OF
DATE EXCAVATED 3/5/25 LOGGED BY: RBB APPROX. ELEV.: 70'NAVD88 SAMPLE METHOD: Hand-Auger
Standard Penetration Test Groundwater
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage
GeoSoils, Inc.

PLATE
Depth (ft.)Bulk
Sample Undisturbed
Blows/Ft.USCS SymbolDry Unit Wt. (pcf)Moisture (%)Saturation (%) Material Description
1 B-5
Item K.2
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 SM
SM
SM
SM
ARTIFICIAL FILL - UNDOCUMENTED:
@ 0' SILTY SAND, dark brownish gray and dark yellowish brown, moist, loose; fine grained, traces of angular gravel and cobble.

QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM:
@ 1¾' SILTY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, loose; fine grained.

WEATHERED QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 3' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose; fine grained.

QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 4' SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, dense; fine grained, lightly cemented.

Approximate total depth = 4'.

No groundwater encountered.

No caving encountered.

Backfilled 3/5/25.

GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: Field
617 W. Circle Drive
Solana Beach, CA 92075
W.O. 7826-A1-SC BORING HA-2 SHEET 1 OF
DATE EXCAVATED 3/5/25 LOGGED BY: RBB APPROX. ELEV.: 70'NAVD88 SAMPLE METHOD: Hand-Auger
Standard Penetration Test Groundwater
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage
GeoSoils, Inc.

PLATE
Depth (ft.)Bulk
Sample Undisturbed
Blows/Ft.USCS SymbolDry Unit Wt. (pcf)Moisture (%)Saturation (%) Material Description
1 B-6
Item K.2

APPENDIX C

SEISMICITY DATA
Item K.2
***********************
* *
* E Q F A U L T *
* *
* Version 3.00 *
* *
***********************

DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF

PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 7826-A1-SC
DATE: 04-12-2025
JOB NAME: FIELD
CALCULATION NAME: 7826-A1
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Users\GSI-09\Documents\EQFAULT & EQSEARCH\CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES:

SITE LATITUDE: 32.9997
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2775
SEARCH RADIUS: 62.2 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor.

UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0

COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Users\GSI-09\Documents\EQFAULT & EQSEARCH\CGSFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
W.O. 7826-A1-SC
Plate C-1
Item K.2
---------------

EQFAULT SUMMARY
---------------
-----------------------------

DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
-----------------------------

Page 1 ends

Solana Beach City CouncilOctober 14, 2026

Solana Beach City Council
October 14, 2026