Del Mar City Council
February 22, 2022

Table of Contents
2022-2-22 Regular Meeting Agenda
Item 1- Minutes Regular and Special Meeting 2-7-2022
Item 2- List of Demands
Item 4 - Landscaping Services Agreement
Item 5 - Additional Funding for 2021 Water, Wastewater, Pavement Project Item 6- Housing Impact Statement Policy
Item 7- NEM 3.0 Opposition Letter
Item 8 - Fire Department Standards of Cover and Management Assessment Item 9- Solid Waste Collections Contract Award_FINAL
Item 10 - 2022 Legislative Guidelines
Item 11 - Del Mar Opposition to Groins
Item 12- SONGS Nuclear Waste Handling
2 8
17 35
114
116
124
127
349
541
564
570
Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Civility Works: The Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse: Together we will promote inclusion; listen to understand; show respect; be clear and fair; and focus on the issue.

Remote Regular Meeting

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:30 PM
In the interest of public health, and consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) and related resolutions adopted by the Del Mar City Council, the City of Del Mar is temporarily taking actions to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council Meetings electronically or by teleconference. This is not an in-person meeting.

Public Participation/Comment
Members of the public can participate in the meeting by either submitting a written red dot comment via email to
[email protected] or by speaking live using the Zoom link and/or dial-in information provided below. The deadline to submit written comments is 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting and the subject line of your email should clearly state the agenda item you are commenting on. Those wishing to comment live should join the Zoom meeting when the item(s) they wish to speak on is announced or at the meeting start time for items not on the agenda.

Zoom Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014
Phone: (669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014
While registration is not required, staff recommends members of the public submit an optional tele-comment request form (www.delmar.ca.us/telecomment) to assist with speaker
management during the meeting. For more information please visit: www.delmar.ca.us/publiccomment.

Viewing the Meeting and Access to Agenda Materials
Members of the public can watch the meeting live on the City’s website at: http://delmar.12milesout.com/Video/Live and on Cable TV Spectrum Ch. 24, AT&T Ch. 99 starting at 4:30 PM.

Agenda materials and communications from the public on agenda items, “Red Dots”, are available on the City’s website: http://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter and a hard copy of the agenda materials are available at the Del Mar Library during their business hours.

Special Needs: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate remotely in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department via email at [email protected] or by calling (858) 755-9313, preferably at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting if possible.

Dwight Worden
Mayor
Tracy Martinez
Deputy Mayor
Dave Druker
Council Member
Terry Gaasterland
Council Member
Dan Quirk
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Leslie E. Devaney
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Acting City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public oral communications will take place shortly after the start of the meeting. Those wishing to comment on any matter not on the agenda may join the meeting at 4:30 PM using the Zoom link and dial-in information: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014; Phone: (669) 900-6833; Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014.

V. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
VI. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
VII. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council, staff, or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be considered separately.

1. Approval of Minutes: February 7, 2022 Regular and Special Meeting Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.

Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book

2. Ratification of List of Demands, dated February 22, 2022 Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3

3. Waiver of Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
Recommended Action: Waive Reading of Ordinances.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Agenda Page 3
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

4. First Amendment to Agreement with Steven Smith Landscape, Inc. for As- Needed Landscaping Services
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Del Mar and Steven Smith Landscape, Inc. (Attachment A) for as-needed citywide landscaping services for an additional two-year period ending March 4, 2024; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1

5. Approval of Additional Funding for the FY 2021-22 Water, Wastewater, and Pavement Improvements Project
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve additional funding for the 2021 Water, Wastewater, and Pavement Improvements Project totaling $80,000 as further described in the agenda report.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 803-1, 907-5

6. Adoption of City Council Policy: Housing Impact Statement for Pending Discretionary Land Use Decisions (6th Cycle Housing Element Program 5B) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) establishing a new City Council Policy for inclusion of a “Housing Impact Statement” within agenda reports prepared for pending discretionary land use and planning decisions. Adoption of the new City Council Policy will complete the required action for implementation of 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 5B.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 303-1

7. Proposed Letter of Opposition to the California Public Utilities Commission Regarding Net Energy Metering 3.0 Proceeding
Recommended Action: Mayor Worden and Councilmember Druker request the City Council approve the submittal of a letter of opposition (Attachment A) to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding the Net Energy Metering (NEM)

3.0 proceeding
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1001-1, 1001-3
IX. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS
X. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Agenda Page 4
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

8. Fire Department Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover, and Management/Administrative Assessment
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation from Fire Administration staff and Fitch and Associates, LLC, and discuss and provide feedback as may be desired.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1101-8

9. Consideration of an Exclusive Solid Waste Collection Service Franchise Agreement with EDCO Disposal Corporation
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Approve a 10-year exclusive franchise agreement with EDCO Disposal Corporation (EDCO) for solid waste collection services with a start date of July 1, 2022 (Attachment A), and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement; and 2) Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) to initiate the notification process required by Proposition 218 and schedule a public hearing on May 16, 2022, to establish the City’s solid waste collection service rates effective July 1, 2022.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1, 906-9

10. Approval of the 2022 Legislative Policy Guidelines and Resolution in Opposition of State Ballot Initiative 21-0042A1
Recommended Action: Staff requests that the City Council review and approve the proposed changes to the City’s Legislative Policy Guidelines (Attachment A) and approve a Resolution opposing Initiative 21-0042A1, the State ballot initiative restricting voters’ input and local taxing authority (Attachments B).

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-7, 401-8

11. Proposed Resolution Opposing Construction of Devices that Could Interfere with Natural Flow of Beach Sand into Del Mar
Recommended Action: Mayor Worden and Councilmember Gaasterland recommend that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) opposing construction of devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand into Del Mar.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1404-1, 1404-2

12. Proposed Resolution Reaffirming the City’s Position on the Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) reaffirming the City’s position on the Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Agenda Page 5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1403-4
XI. REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a regional organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report unless the item of business within the report is described in the agenda.

A. 22nd District Agricultural Association Community Relations Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
B. Clean Energy Alliance JPA (CEA) Board of Directors (Druker/Worden) C. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Martinez/Druker) D. Fire Governance Board, Solana Beach/Del Mar/Encinitas (Druker/Martinez) E. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Worden/Martinez) F. North County Transit District (NCTD) (Quirk/Gaasterland/Druker) G. Regional Solid Waste Association (Worden/Quirk)
H. San Diego Association of Governments Board (SANDAG)
(Gaasterland/Druker/Quirk)
I. SANDAG Borders Committee (Druker)
J. SANDAG Regional Planning Committee (Gaasterland)
K. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group (Worden/Gaasterland) L. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater JPA Advisory Committee to San Diego (Quirk/Bride)
M. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA –Executive Committee (Worden/Quirk)
N. Other Regional Organization Reports
XII. COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY ORG REPORTS A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a City Committee, Council Subcommittee OR Community Organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report, unless the item of business within the report is described in this agenda.

A. Ad-Hoc Referendum Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
B. Arts Advisory Committee (Druker/Worden)
C. Clean Water Rate Project (Druker, Quirk)
D. Del Mar Community Connections (Martinez/Quirk)
E. Del Mar Village Association (Druker/Quirk)
F. Finance Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk)
G. Housing Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
H. Human Resources Subcommittee (Druker/Worden)
I. Legislative Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
J. Long-Term Rail Relocation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) K. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Druker/Quirk) L. Parks and Recreation Committee (Druker/Worden)
M. Planning Process Subcommittee (Druker/Gaasterland)
N. Safe Rail Crossing and Bluff Stabilization Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Agenda Page 6
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us O. Lagoon Committee (Quirk/Worden)
P. Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Implementation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
Q. Shores Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
R. Solid Waste Procurement Services Ad-Hoc Subcommittee (Quirk/Worden) S. Sustainability Advisory Committee (DrukerWorden)
T. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Martinez/Worden) U. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk) V. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XIII. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are tentatively planned for upcoming agendas. The title, wording, and planned date for these items are subject to change. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying staff report. Please watch our web site:
www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas.

March 7, 2022
Appointment(s) to the Sustainability Advisory Committee Resolution to Accept Housing Acceleration Program Grant Funds (Tentative) AB361 Continuation of Remote Public Meetings
Design Review Board - Interviews and Appointment of Ex-Officio Member (Tentative) Introduction of Ordinance to Accept CCC Mods for NC/PC LCPA ADU Status Update to Council (No Formal Action Taken)
Mid-Year Financial Report
Crest Canyon Evacuation Plan (Tentative)
Riverpath Phase 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration Information Summary XIV. CERTIFICATION
I, Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 16th day of February, 2022, at approximately 4:00 p.m.
___________________________________________ 2/16/2022
Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk Date

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 7, 2022 – VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar California 92014
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City's Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda has published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the Regular Meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Dwight Worden; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dave Druker, Terry Gaasterland and Dan Quirk

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Leslie Devaney reported that there were no reportable actions or recusals from the January 25, 2022, City Council closed session meeting. For the February 7, 2022 City Council closed session meeting, there were no reportable actions. Deputy Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Quirk were recused from Item B3 and Councilmember Druker was recused from Item D due to each recused Councilmember living within 500 feet of the subject matter of the identified agenda item.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Worden led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
None.

COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Deputy Mayor Martinez reported on the deficiency in blood donations via CSA-17 and requested residents who are able, to contact the Red Cross in order to donate blood. Mayor Worden reported on the Rotary Club of Del Mar model United Nation’s program, recent Regional Task Force on Homelessness (RTFH) meeting he attended, the Mobile Crisis Response Team (MCRT) efforts in the County of San Diego, and the Point in Time homeless count conducted through the RTFH.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
1 February 22, 2022 Item 01
City Council Regular Minutes
February 7, 2022

City Manager Ashley Jones reported that the City recently replanted two Monterey Cypress and one Torrey Pine tree at Seagrove Park; thanked Laura DeMarco and Leslie Robson for volunteering during last week’s Beach Sand Push Operations; and she introduced new Planning & Community Development Director Karen Brindley. City Manager Jones also introduced and thanked the Rotary Club of Del Mar for their efforts on refurbishing many publicly owned items including benches, tables and trash cans, around town.

PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 1: UPDATE ON THE CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1403-4) Councilmember Druker introduced the item. Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) CEO Barbara Boswell provided a presentation.

City Council questions focused on the 2022 delivery charges; arrangement for net energy metering CEA program; clarification on the cause in decrease in exit fees for the City of Solana Beach residents; causes of the change in expenses as a portion of revenues and whether that relates to the cities of San Marcos and Escondido joining CEA; and whether the CEA’s expenses in each year going forward include repayment of the startup costs and the timing for the City to receive repayment.

There were no public speakers for the item.

City Council discussion focused on support for the CEA and for the 100% renewable option for Del Mar residents.

ITEM 2: PRESENTATION ON THE SAN DIEGUITO RIVER PARK’S W-19 PROJECT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1405-1)
Mayor Worden introduced the item. San Dieguito River Park JPA Executive Director Shawna Anderson and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Senior Environmental Planner Kim Smith provided a presentation.

City Council questions focused on ongoing mitigation efforts and location of the sand trap; use of a berm to protect the wetlands; difference between a berm and a living levee; and timing for completion of the project’s construction.

There were no public speakers for the item.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Acting City Clerk Sarah Krietor read the titles of the items included on the Consent Calendar.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 THROUGH 10 AND ITEM 12. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
2 February 22, 2022 Item 01
City Council Regular Minutes
February 7, 2022

ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 10, 2022 REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING;
JANUARY 25, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING (CLERK’S MINUTES BOOK)
Council approved the minutes, on consent.

ITEM 4: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2022 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
Council approved the list of demands, on consent.

ITEM 5: WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401- 4)
Council waived the reading of ordinances, on consent.

ITEM 6: CONTINUATION OF REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (ASSEMBLY BILL 361) (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-7)
Council adopted resolution 2022-11, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 RELATED TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 IN

ORDER TO CONTINUE THE USE OF TELECONFERENCE OR A REMOTE MEETING PLATFORM TO FACILITATE REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS”, on consent.

ITEM 7: APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION

SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE TORREY PINES BRIDGE DECK TREATMENT PROJECT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1, 901-3)
Council approved an Agreement with T.Y. Lin International for engineering and construction support services related to the Torrey Pines Bridge Deck Treatment Project; and authorized the City Manager to execute the Agreement, on consent.

ITEM 8: LAGOON COMMITTEE MEMBER REAPPOINTMENT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5) Council reappointed Carol Kerridge as a voting member of the Lagoon Committee to serve a full three-year term effective February 7, 2022, and expiring on February 28, 2025, on consent.

ITEM 9: ACCEPT 2020 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS FOR

THE PURCHASE OF VERY HIGH FREQUENCY (VHF) MOBILE AND PORTABLE RADIOS FOR THE DEL MAR FIRE DEPARTMENT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-13, 1101-8)
3 February 22, 2022 Item 01
City Council Regular Minutes
February 7, 2022

Council authorized the acceptance of $7,453 from the 2020 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) grant funds for the purchase of VHF mobile and portable radios for the Del Mar Fire Department, authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents, and amended the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Operating and Capital Budget as indicated in the Fiscal Impact section of this report, on consent.

ITEM 10: AMENDMENT TO THE SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5)
Council adopted resolution 2022-12, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER TO AMEND THE COMMITTEE’S
MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS”, on consent.

ITEM 11: PROPOSED LETTER OF OPPOSITION TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION REGARDING NET ENERGY METERING 3.0 PROCEEDING (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1001-1, 1001-3)
The item was pulled from the consent calendar. Joe Gabaldon with SDG&E provided public comment. Council discussion focused on Mr. Gabaldon’s suggestion to include language about equitability in the letter.

Council consensus was for Mayor Worden and Councilmember Druker to work with staff on a revised letter of opposition to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding the Net Energy Metering 3.0 proceeding and return to Council for consideration at a future meeting.

ITEM 12: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) GRANT AND PAYMENT PROGRAM APPLICATIONS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-13)
Council adopted resolution 2022-13, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, TO AUTHORIZE THE SUBMITTAL OF

APPLICATION(S) FOR ALL CALRECYCLE GRANT AND PAYMENT PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THE CITY OF DEL MAR IS ELIGIBILE”, and authorized the City Manager to execute any necessary grant documents, on consent.

COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS
ITEM 13: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5)
Acting City Clerk Sarah Krietor provided an overview of the Design Review Board (DRB) interview process. The Council considered a written statement provided by applicant Glenn Warren, who was unable to attend the meeting, and interviewed applicant Arlene Prater. Following the interview process, Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Gaasterland and Quirk voted to reappoint Glenn Warren, and Councilmember Druker voted to appoint Arlene Prater to the 4 February 22, 2022 Item 01
City Council Regular Minutes
February 7, 2022

DRB. Based on the outcome of the City Council vote, Glenn Warren was appointed to a second term on the DRB from February 7, 2022 to February 7, 2026.

There were no public speakers for the item.

COUNCIL MEETING RECESS:

The City Council took a meeting recess from approximately 6:20 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 14: TEWA COURT/10TH STREET UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT - AWARD

OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BLUE PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION,

PROJECT BUDGET UPDATES AND AUTHORIZATION OF CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH UTILITY COMPANIES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1, 1001-2)
City Manager Jones introduced the item. A presentation was provided by Assistant City Manager Kristen Crane. Additional information was provided by City Manager Jones and Public Works Director Joe Bride. Utility Specialist project consultants Bridget Black and Duane Stroobosscher were available to answer City Council questions.

Council questions focused on the number of retaining walls that may be needed for future City undergrounding projects; climate related impacts Council could consider when selecting the retaining wall material; reasons for the differential between the project estimate and actual bids received for this project; cost savings related to the rule 32A2; and clarification on tax due to SDG&E related to the conduit.

There were no public speakers for this item.

Council discussion focused on the cost of the project and concerns regarding the cost for future projects; lessons learned related to the project and project cost estimates; support for the undergrounding project; consideration of various material options for the retaining wall; consideration of a City Council guiding principle for visible retaining walls; consideration of purchasing surplus replacement materials for the retaining wall; and potential future allocation of Measure Q funds related to the Shores Park Master Planning Project.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER

DRUKER TO AWARD THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BLUE PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION; AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND AGREEMENTS WITH SDG&E AND AT&T; AND APPROVE PROJECT BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $296,100 FROM MEASURE Q FUND TO THE TEWA COURT/10TH STREET PROJECT BUDGET. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND AND SECONDED BY DEPUTY

MAYOR MARTINEZ TO DIRECT STAFF TO USE THE STONE VENEER OPTION AND AMEND 5 February 22, 2022 Item 01
City Council Regular Minutes
February 7, 2022

THE PROJECT BUDGET TO ALLOCATE $3,000 FOR THE ALTERNATIVE RETAINING WALL MATERIAL. (VOTE 4-1)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker and Gaasterland; Noes: Councilmember Quirk; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 15: STATUS UPDATE REGARDING THE CITY’S NORTH

COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE AMENDMENT LCPA
(CLERK’S FILE NO. 305-1, 1502-14)
Deputy Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Quirk were recused from participating in this agenda item due to living within 500 feet of the subject matter of this discussion. A presentation was provided by Principal Planner Amanda Lee.

Council questions focused on the definition of multi-unit and whether a duplex is considered multiunit.

There were no public speakers for the item.

Council discussion focused on recognition that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has the opportunity to appeal projects in the North Commercial Zone in the future; support for the amendments as outlined by staff; challenges of harmonizing and incorporating feedback received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and CCC in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element; and mechanism for hazard disclosures for properties in the zone.

Council consensus was to use staff’s red dot language as a starting point in discussions with the CCC and assign Mayor Worden and Councilmember Gaasterland to work with staff as needed on the amendments and determine if a letter should be issued to the CCC later this week.

ITEM 16: PREPARATIONS FOR 2022 CITY COUNCIL GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-1)
A presentation was provided by City Manager Jones.

Council questions focused on examples of past City Council team building activities; process for public input and comment; and proposed date and timing for the Goal Setting Workshop.

There were no public speakers for the item.

Council discussion focused on the format for the workshop; process for City Councilmembers to provide input and suggest potential work plan items for City Council consideration; possible formats for a City Council retreat; deferring the decision to hold a City Council team building retreat until in-person meetings can resume; and goal setting in light of the City’s limited resources.

Council consensus was to direct staff to hold a City Council Goal Setting Workshop the week of March 7, 2022, and to defer consideration of holding a City Council Team Building Retreat until the City Council determines it is safe to resume in-person meetings. 6 February 22, 2022 Item 01
City Council Regular Minutes
February 7, 2022

ITEM 17: COUNCIL DISCUSSION REGARDING DEL MAR REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) ALLOCATION AND RELATED DATA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 303-1)
A presentation was provided by Deputy Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Gaasterland.

Council questions and discussion focused on consideration of sending a letter to San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) related to future RHNA calculations and methodology; clarification on the goal of issuing a letter to SANDAG regarding RHNA numbers; SANDAG’s methodology for calculating RHNA numbers; outcome of challenges of RHNA numbers by local agencies; City’s ability to calculate its own employment numbers in its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report; calculation of Del Mar jobs in RHNA numbers; and understanding that the City cannot change the current RHNA numbers but to engage in the process on the next cycle’s RHNA numbers.

There were no public speakers for the item.

City Council consensus was to send SANDAG a letter requesting the RHNA related information described in the agenda report.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY

ORG REPORTS
Council representatives reported on the Clean Energy Alliance, North County Transit District, Regional Solid Waste Association, San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA, Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee, and Sustainability Advisory Committee.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m.

Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
7 February 22, 2022 Item 01

DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
Via Teleconference
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the meeting to order at 2:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Dwight Worden; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dave Druker, Terry Gaasterland and Dan Quirk

PUBLIC COMMENT
The Mayor opened public comment for items on the agenda and Tom Grindle spoke regarding Items A and B1.

CLOSED SESSION
A) Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
North County Transit District (NCTD) – Verified Petition for Declaratory Order Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No. 36433
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Reportable Action: None.

B) Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Cases: Three

1. Liabilities related to NCTD right-of-way fencing

2. Legal issues related to telecom and Undergrounding Project

3. Legal issues related to the Housing Element NC/PC LCPA Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
Reportable Action: There were no reportable actions. Councilmembers Martinez and Quirk were recused from participating in this discussion due to the proximity of their residences to the subject matter location.

C) Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Olson v. City of Del Mar
San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2019-00069156-CU-MC-CTL Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Reportable Action: None.

D) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
The Winston School of San Diego, Inc. v. City of Del Mar San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2021-00042977-CU-CO-CTL Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Reportable Action: None. Councilmember Druker was recused from participating in this discussion due to the proximity of his residence to The Winston School. 8 February 22, 2022 Item 01

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
February 7, 2022

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 3:58 P.M.

Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
9 February 22, 2022 Item 01
1 February 22, 2022 Item 02
2 February 22, 2022 Item 02
3 February 22, 2022 Item 02
4 February 22, 2022 Item 02
5 February 22, 2022 Item 02
6 February 22, 2022 Item 02
7 February 22, 2022 Item 02
8 February 22, 2022 Item 02
9 February 22, 2022 Item 02
10 February 22, 2022 Item 02
11 February 22, 2022 Item 02
12 February 22, 2022 Item 02
13 February 22, 2022 Item 02
14 February 22, 2022 Item 02
15 February 22, 2022 Item 02
16 February 22, 2022 Item 02
17 February 22, 2022 Item 02
18 February 22, 2022 Item 02
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Kseniia Izgarskaia, Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: February 22, 2022
SUBJECT: First Amendment to Agreement with Steven Smith Landscape, Inc. for AsNeeded Landscaping Services REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Del Mar and Steven Smith Landscape, Inc. (Attachment A) for as-needed citywide landscaping services for an additional two-year period ending March 4, 2024; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The City of Del Mar is committed to maintaining its urban landscaping with the goal to improve residents’ quality of life, provide health and aesthetic benefits, and promote public safety and water conservancy standards. The City’s long-time practice has been to hire a third-party contractor to provide as-needed landscaping services. As such, the City entered into an Agreement with Steven Smith Landscape Inc. (Contractor) on March 4, 2019 (Attachment B), for an initial three-year period, to provide as-needed landscaping services, including turf, shrub, tree, walkway, and weed control services throughout the City’s parks, medians, street ends, and other public areas in the City of Del Mar. The initial term of the Agreement is set to expire on March 4, 2022.

Section 2.1 of the Agreement allows for an additional two-year extension to the contract term contingent upon satisfactory performance by the Contractor. During the initial term of the Agreement, the Contractor has been providing high quality services to the City and has been responsive to the City’s requests. For this reason, staff is proposing to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional two-year period ending on March 4, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council for this agenda item. Funds for as-needed landscaping services are available in the FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget.
1 February 22, 2022 Item 04
City Council Agenda Report
Amendment to Agreement for Landscaping Services
February 22, 2022

NEXUS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item and is not included in the City Council’s list of Goals & Priorities.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action being considered is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of CEQA Guidelines. The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - First Amendment to the Agreement with Steven Smith Landscape, Inc.

Attachment B – Original Agreement with Steven Smith Landscape, Inc. (2019) 2 February 22, 2022 Item 04

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR AND STEVEN SMITH LANDSCAPE, INC.

FOR AS-NEEDED LANDSCAPING SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Agreement (First Amendment) is made and entered into effective the 22nd day of February, 2022, by and between the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and municipal corporation (“City”), and Steven Smith Landscape, Inc. (“Contractor”) (collectively “Parties”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2019, the City and Contractor entered into an Agreement for as-needed citywide landscaping services (Agreement), by which the City and Contractor established the terms and conditions for providing landscape services in the parks, medians, street ends, and other public areas in the City of Del Mar; and
WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional two-year period as provided for in Section 2.1; and WHEREAS, the First Amendment is necessary in order to extend the term of the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

Section 1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement is amended as follows:

2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT

2.1 Term, Time for Performance. The term of the Agreement is for a period commencing on March 4, 2019, and terminating
March 4, 2024 (“Termination Date”) unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.

Section 2. Except as otherwise provided in this First Amendment, all terms and conditions, and attachments and exhibits thereto, of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]

ATTACHMENT A
3 February 22, 2022 Item 04
City of Del Mar
First Amendment to As-Needed Landscaping Services Agreement

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First Amendment to be effective as of the date first written above.

CITY OF DEL MAR,
a municipal corporation
By:

Ashley Jones, City Manager
STEVEN SMITH LANDSCAPE, INC.

By:

Steven Smith, President
ATTEST:

By:

Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
4 February 22, 2022 Item 04
5 February 22, 2022 Item 04
6 February 22, 2022 Item 04
7 February 22, 2022 Item 04
8 February 22, 2022 Item 04
9 February 22, 2022 Item 04
10 February 22, 2022 Item 04
11 February 22, 2022 Item 04
12 February 22, 2022 Item 04
13 February 22, 2022 Item 04
14 February 22, 2022 Item 04
15 February 22, 2022 Item 04
16 February 22, 2022 Item 04
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreementon the date first written above.

CITY OF DEL TAR,
e
By:

W. Huth, Manager
ATTEST:

Ashley Jones,
Services Director/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

E. Devaney, C¡ty
STEVEiI STITH LANDSCAPE,
tNc.

Steven Smith, President
17 February 22, 2022 Item 04
EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF WORK

GENERAL PROVISIONS
Contractor shall provide and/or purchase all equipment, labor and materials required to perform the following services in a satisfactory manner:

1. Contractor shall perform a baseline maintenance and service of the facilities listed. This baseline will establish the model for all landscaping during the term of this contract.

2. Contractor shall provide landscaping services for the City of Del Mar facilities listed in this document.

3. Contractor shall provide and/or purchase all services, products, equipment, vehicles, and employees as defined in this document.

4. Contractor shall adhere to all scheduling as defined in this document unless a schedule change has been approved by the City in writing.

The Contractor shall accomplish all normal landscape maintenance required under this contract between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Exceptions may be made to normal working hours where incidence of use may be too great during the hours specified to allow for proper maintenance. The Landscape Specialist may grant, on an individual basis, permission to perform contract maintenance at other hours. No maintenance functions that generate excess noise, e.g., operations of power equipment, which would cause annoyance to residents of the area, shall be commenced before 7:00 A.M. The Contractor shall establish an annual WORK schedule to be followed in the performance of this contract.

The WORK schedule must be competed and submitted to the Landscape Specialist prior to the commencement of work on this contract. Any changes in scheduling shall be reported, in writing, to the Landscape Specialist immediately. This schedule shall include routine work as well infrequent operations such as fertilization, aeration, renovation, and pruning.

The Contractor shall conduct the work at all times in a manner which will not unreasonably interfere with pedestrian traffic on adjacent sidewalks or vehicular traffic on adjacent streets.

5. Contractor shall provide additional landscaping services, as-needed, and as defined by change order(s) or proposal(s) for events and/or special considerations for the City of Del Mar.
18 February 22, 2022 Item 04

6. Contractor shall maintain a current City of Del Mar business license, and his/her subcontractors shall do so as well.

7. Contractor shall maintain compliance with the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, regarding storm water runoff system discharge regulations and requirements, and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Order No. 2013-0001.

Compliance includes the implementation of practical methods, known as Best Management Practices (BMPs), which shall be used to protect the environment and to comply with regulatory requirements. Power washing and other wash water runoff shall be recovered and disposed of properly. Violations of any of these requirements may lead to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per day, per violation.

8. Contractor shall present a professional image and maintain a high standard of quality and technical competence. Total responsibility for this is placed upon the Contractor. If conflict occurs between “Best Management Practice” and the specification, “Best Management Practice” shall prevail and the City shall be notified of any necessary changes to the specified operations/materials.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

9. Do not allow contaminated water or landscaping solution(s) to enter the storm water system.

10. Best Management Practices: This work must be in compliance with all current and future water quality requirements as set out in Del Mar’s Municipal Code ‘Storm Water and Urban Run-Off Management and Discharge Control’ and State and Federal requirements.

COMPANY EMPLOYEES AND VEHICLES

11. Contractor will provide uniformed staff supervised by fully trained Supervisors and Area Manager. Radio and cellular phone communication will be available.

The lead person on site must be proficient in the English language and can make decisions at the location regarding safety and or general concerns

12. Contractor will supply a pool of employees sufficient to meet the agency’s needs.

13. Contractor will provide or pay for their employees to wear clean, neat appearing uniforms that will be worn while working on City premises. Uniforms will consist of a polo shirt or other collared shirt with name tag and Contractor’s identification and full-length work pants.
19 February 22, 2022 Item 04

14. Vehicles used will have the Contractor’s name or logo permanently affixed to the front doors of both passenger and driver’s side.

15. Contractor’s vehicles will be clean, orderly and in good working order.

16. Contractor and his employees will be courteous and show respect to the public, City employees and other Contractor employees at all times. Use a friendly voice tone and offer assistance when necessary.

17. Contractor and its employees must successfully complete a criminal record check after providing the County Sheriff’s Department two current passport size photos, a completed request for Live Scan service, a completed Landscaping Application, and a copy of the applicant’s driver license or Government issued identification.

18. The applicant will need to contact the County Sheriff’s Department at (858) 974- 2110 to schedule an appointment to be Live Scanned and have their photo taken for the City-issued contractor identification card.

19. Once the applicant has been live scanned (fingerprinted), the County Sheriff’s Department must wait for a response from the Department of Justice.

20. The Department of Justice may send the County Sheriff’s Department a 30-day, 60- day or 90-day delay on the applicant. The City has no control over these delays. This occurs because applicants may have common names, have been previously permitted, or have prior criminal history or arrest information on file.

No applicants will be approved and no issuance of keys, security codes, or access information for any City facility will be provided by the contractor or the City to the applicant until all information has been received from the Department of Justice and that applicant cleared by the City and a City of Del Mar contractor identification card issued.

21. Contractor will pay the fee for Live Scan for each employee working within City facilities.

22. The employee will be placed on subsequent notification. This requirement allows the Department to receive notification of any arrest subsequent to the Live Scan check.

23. Contractor and its employees must successfully pass a drug screening prior to conducting work under this contract.

24. Contractor is responsible for their employees’ actions on these sites. 20 February 22, 2022 Item 04

25. Contractor will ensure that his employees do not have other “unapproved” personnel including children in the facilities or in the Contractor’s vehicles outside the facility.

26. Contractor will ensure that his employees do not store personal property of any kind in or on City facilities.

27. Contractor will not issue, loan or otherwise allow the procurement of keys, access information, or codes to anyone, including employees, without first receiving authorization from the City Representative and without first successfully completing the background check and Live Scan and submitting said documentation to the City Representative.

28. Contracted employees will refrain from making or receiving personal calls during working hours. Non-emergency calls should be made during breaks or lunch. At no time, other than emergency should the telephone be used by this Contractor.

BUILDING SECURITY

29. Report to the City Representative in writing any walls, equipment and furniture damaged by vandalism, graffiti, stains, water leaks, etc.

30. Report in writing to the City Representative security system false alarms activated by Contractor’s employees or otherwise occurring during landscaping service when no City employee is present.

31. Contractor shall not duplicate keys without first receiving written permission from the City Representative.

32. Contractor is responsible for retrieving all City security information from those employees no longer employed by the Contractor, for whatever reason.

33. Contractor will notify the City Representative of any Contractor employee whose employment has been terminated or has security information or appurtenances.

34. Contractor is responsible for the cost of any re-keying, entry code, or security code changes needed due to non-retrieval of this security information, keys or appurtenances from its past employees.

CITY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE

35. The City of Del Mar Public offices will be closed in observation of the following holidays. City will be closed on these dates:
 New Year’s Day
 Martin Luther King’s Birthday
21 February 22, 2022 Item 04
 President’s Day
 Memorial Day
 Independence Day
 Labor Day
 Veterans’ Day
 Thanksgiving
 Day after Thanksgiving
 Christmas Eve
 Christmas Day
 New Year’s Eve
 New Year’s Day
TASKS

36. The Contractor will purchase, supply and replenish all products including, but not limited to: plants, piping, sprinklers, drains, filters and anything related to the designed system should this become necessary.

37. The Contractor will supply all equipment in good working order including, but not limited to: landscaping vehicles, landscaping supplies, vacuum cleaners, fertilizers and weed abatement chemicals and all other landscaping appurtenances.

38. Contractor will separate all recyclable material from other refuse and deposit in appropriate receptacle.

39. Contractor will leave facility visually clean having vacuumed, swept or otherwise cleaned in each area per this document to the standards defined within this document, industry standards and City‘s expectation.

LANDSCAPING LOG
 The FACILITY shall have the Contractor-provided landscaping log. This log will be filled out by the Contractor’s employee before exiting the facility site, each visit.
 The landscaping has an area for notes and comments. All alarm soundings, graffiti, pest control needs, security issues, leaks or nonworking plumbing devices, damage to property, and areas left not serviced will be noted in this comments area.
 All notations in the area for notes and comments will be relayed within 24 hours to the City Representative by e-mail.

SERVICE ADJUSTMENTS
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the services as needed. Services and fees for new facilities shall be added at the average rate per square foot for a 22 February 22, 2022 Item 04
comparable facility at the time of the addition. Such changes will be according to the terms and conditions of said bid specification and will be done through a duly authorized change notice to the master agreement for regular service and by City- approved proposal for event or special landscaping.

SITE INSPECTION AND REPORTING

40. Report immediately by telephone (during regular working hours (858) 755-3294, after hours issues call Del Mar Public Works dispatch at (858) 756-1126 issues that may require immediate action. For emergencies call 911.  Incidents of injury, damage or potential hazards to the public, end users or employees.
 Running water or leaks
 Sewer backups

41. Report immediately by e-mail issues such as, but not limited to:
 Public nuisances
 Work performance delays
 Repairs needed
 Dripping water
 Non-emergency electrical issues such as, but not limited to, outlets without power or entire buildings without power.
 Lost and found articles
 Deliver any lost and found article to Del Mar Public Works, 2240 Jimmy Durante Boulevard, Del Mar CA 92014.

PAYMENTS

42. Invoices will be submitted to: City of Del Mar, Public Works 2240 Jimmy Durante Boulevard Del Mar, California 92014 Attn: Landscape Specialist.

43. Contractor will submit a monthly payment invoice listing the AREAS SERVICED and each individual invoice amount.

44. If the City determines that there are deficiencies in the performance of this contract, the Contractor will be notified both verbally and in writing each time service requirements are found to be unsatisfactory and corrective action is necessary. Should the Contractor fail to correct any deficiencies within 2 hours, the City may exercise the following measures:
 Deduct from the Contractor’s payment the amount necessary to correct the deficiency.
23 February 22, 2022 Item 04
 Withhold the entire or partial payment.
 Utilize City forces or alternate source to correct the deficiency and deduct from the Contractor’s payment the total cost, including City overhead.

PRODUCTS

45. No items other than those shown will be stored in the City facility.

46. All products will meet or exceed the City’s specifications.

47. The City will not pay any additional costs for Contractor requested substitutions when the City listed approved products are still available. The City reserves the right to approve or disapprove any product.

48. Contractor will provide the City with MSDS information on all product submittals.

49. Contractor is responsible for providing MSDS information to their employees.

EQUIPMENT

50. Contractor will supply and maintain all tools and equipment in good and proper working condition, vacuum cleaners, landscaping vehicles, landscaping supplies and chemicals, and secure an adequate inventory of all landscaping supplies and products.

51. All equipment provided by the Contractor will be of commercial grade.

52. The use of portable leaf blowers is prohibited within the City of Del Mar. NO EXCEPTIONS shall be granted. For every incident where the Contractor or Subcontractors are observed using leaf blowers, the CONTRACTOR shall pay the AGENCY, or have monies due withheld, the sum of five hundred ($500).

SUBMITTALS

53. All materials and consumable products are subject to prior approval by the City’s Representative. Contractor will provide submittals for the following items to the City’s Representative for approval. All materials and consumable products used at these project sites will be subject to prior approval through this submittal application process. No materials will be accepted for use on this project without prior approval, in writing. All Submittals will have the appropriate MSDS attached for City review.

54. Any Contractor-requested replacements for the items listed in “PREAPPROVED PRODUCTS” are subject to this approval process. 24 February 22, 2022 Item 04

QUALITY ASSURANCE

55. Contractor is responsible for training, supervising, equipping, checking work quality, ensuring adherence to schedule, and all other management issues involved with his employees. Quality control is the responsibility of the Contractor.

56. Contractor is responsible for training, supervising, equipping, checking work quality, ensuring adherence to schedule, and all other management issues involved with his employees. Quality control is the responsibility of the Contractor.

57. Contractor will notify the City Representative in writing of any conditions or events as defined in this document.

FACILITY CONTACTS
Location Contact Telephone and e-mail
City of Del Mar, Public Works
2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd,
California 92014
John Barnett,
Landscape Specialist
(858) 755-3294
[email protected]
*All written communication from the Contractor to contacts of the individual facilities will be carbon copied to the City Representative. All written communication from the Contacts of the individual facilities to the Contractor will be carbon copied to the City Representative.

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE / DEFINITIONS
These standards are an outline of general expectations of landscaping but are not meant to replace or supersede the latest industry standards or materials and equipment manufacturers’ recommendations. Each of the Contractor’s Employee’s shall be equipped with the necessary equipment to carry out the proper performance of the landscaping as specified. This equipment shall be available and in possession of the Contractor’s Employee’s at all times while carrying out their duties.

Service Level (Acceptable Quality): The level of services as outlined in these Specifications shall consistently be maintained. During the Contract period, the Contract Administrator will conduct monthly inspections of the facilities under this Contract. The inspections are based on standards for commercial facilities within the maintenance industry.

POLICING: Policing is picking up leaves, branches, paper, trash, empty bottles, containers, and other discarded materials that are not part of the habitat and planted areas.
25 February 22, 2022 Item 04
Standard: Area(s) being policed shall be free of debris. Area(s) shall present an overall clean and maintained appearance.

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Police: Remove all trash and debris in planter(s) in specified locations.

Supply/Provide: Provide necessary fertilizers and plant food as necessary to maintain the integrity of what was originally placed. All supplies necessary for the implementation of said work. This will include brooms, shovels, hoes, tree trimmers, ladders, safety vests, shoes, cell phone, safety barricades, fertilizers, tie offs to trees, without marring, discolorations of finishes.

Haul Off: Contractor to utilize green waste and trash receptacles at the Public Works Yard for any and all debris from the Landscaping activities.

Wash: Remove all dirt, stains, and marks with an approved cleaner; rinse and dry.

Rubber tires: No vehicle will be able to contact the concrete/flagstone surfaces without protection of tire markings.

DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of services includes turf management; shrub bed maintenance; tree care and pruning; fertilization; sweeping of artificial grass surfaces and cleaning of hardscape; environmental weed and pest control program; and irrigation equipment and operations for all locations identified in this Request for Proposals (“RFP”).

It is the responsibility of the Contractor to visit the site and become familiar with the project location and maintenance needs. It is the City’s expectation that all land care and maintenance items identified in this RFP will be addressed. The City is considering awarding a contract for the term of seven (7) months and may be renewable for an additional four (4) single years upon annual review of the provided services. The City of Del Mar reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals. These specifications and scope of services shall become part of the contract agreement.

City is responsible for all costs associated to water.

PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION
Kick-off Meeting
Upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City of Del Mar, Contractor shall conduct a kick-off meeting with the City to review the scope of the project, develop a project schedule, and confirm deliverables. The project schedule shall include each task and subtasks.
26 February 22, 2022 Item 04
Coordination
Facilities are owned by the City of Del Mar. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to coordinate any interactions that may need to occur with various City departments or outside agencies throughout the provided services.

TREES (Contract exclusively includes trees less than 12 feet in height. The City maintains a separate tree maintenance program with an arborist company for the city’s larger trees.)
Staking
 University of California Publication, Tree Staking, shall be used as a guideline.

The purpose of staking trees is to support and protect young trees until they are able to stand alone.
 All tree stakes and ties shall be maintained to properly support the tree. They shall be inspected a minimum of once every 30 days to prevent girdling or chafing of trunks or branches or rubbing which may cause bark wounds.  Stakes should not remain on trees for longer than a one-year period.  If and when pumping of the roots are a necessity, it is part of this scope of work.

Pruning
 University of California Publication, Training Young Trees for Structure and Form, shall be used as a guideline. All trees shall be allowed to grow to their natural genetic form and size, unless specifically accepted. (please remove underlines throughout)
 All trees shall be pruned to promote structural strength and to accentuate the natural form and features of the tree.
 Pruning must be carried out to permit unobstructed passage to pedestrians and motor vehicles and to prevent sight restrictions near intersections. This means that branches should be maintained to 7-1/2 ft. above sidewalks and 12 ft. above vehicular areas. Shrubs and groundcover must be trimmed 4 in. from sidewalks and curbs. All trees under 12 feet total height will be pruned to remove weak, dead, damaged, and diseased portions of the plant for natural growth development. Cuts will be flush and clean, leaving not stubs, or tearing of bark. Major pruning will be done following flowering or during plant’s dormant season.
 Stripping of lower branches (“raising up”) of young trees shall not be permitted. Lower branches shall be retained in a “tipped back” or pinched condition with as much foliage as possible to promote trunk caliper. Lower branches should be cut off only after the tree is able to stand erect without staking or other support.
27 February 22, 2022 Item 04
 Thinning of certain species and individual specimens may be required to prevent wind damage. Suckers, water sprouts, rubbing and heavily laden branches shall be removed to provide less wind resistance.  Tree guying and staking shall be adjusted to prevent chafing and girdling.

Fertilization
 Contractor shall exclusively use approved natural organic fertilizer “Nature Safe” or equal for all turf, plants, shrubs, and trees.  Most trees shall be fertilized annually, in the spring, with a complete fertilizer.

Fertilization of mature trees shall be required only if the trees show a definite need for fertilization.
 Fertilizer shall be applied around the tree, approximately halfway between the trunk and the dripline, at the rate of one-half pound of nitrogen per inch of trunk diameter measured at four feet above the soil surface.  All trees shall be observed for signs of nutrient deficiencies and treated to correct deficiencies throughout the year.
 The cost of fertilization and its application is included.  Trees shall be fertilized where signs there are signs of nutritional deficiencies or a desire for additional growth.

TURF CARE
 Mowing: Warm season grass: Shall be mowed (maintained) with reel type mowers at a height of ¾” to 1”. All turf areas shall be cut at regular weekly intervals to maintain a neat appearance at all times. Cool season grass: Turf shall be mowed with rotary type mowers at a height of three inches (3”) during the spring, summer and fall. In the winter, turf areas shall be mowed at a height of 2”. All turf areas shall be cut at regular weekly intervals to maintain a neat appearance at all times. Excess clippings which present an undesirable appearance shall be removed from the turf.
 Leaf Blowers: Leaf Blowers are NOT allowed to be used within the City of Del Mar. Consider using a yard vacuum to pick up materials.  Edging and Trimming: Turf edges adjacent to walks, curbs, paving mow strips, walls, fences, poles, buildings, shrub areas and other physical obstructions shall be trimmed weekly. “Weed eaters” or similar equipment shall not be used around trees or shrubs.
28 February 22, 2022 Item 04
 Aeration: All turf areas to be aerated during the months of March and October by removing half inch (1/2”) diameter by three inches (3”) deep cores with an aerator machine at not more than six inch (6”) spacing.

CONTRACTOR shall flag all irrigation sprinklers prior to commencement of work. Cores shall be dragged or removed (by mowing) after completion of aeration.

Aerification Mowing shall be performed twice a year, April and October.

Renovation shall be performed once a year, beginning May 15th. All sites must be completed by June 30th, unless otherwise specified.  Fertilization: Apply a complete controlled release fertilizer (e.g. Nature Safe Organic fertilizer 27-2-2 with UflexxTM) at appropriate intervals, after aeration operations, so as to maintain a healthy, actively growing turf.  Weed Removal: Weeds shall be removed from all turf grass areas, shrub and ground cover areas, planters, tree wells, slopes, cracks in paved areas, including sidewalks, areas covered with ornamental rocks and bark mulch, and in curbs and gutters. The weeds shall be pulled on a weekly basis.

For the purpose of this specification a weed will be considered “any undesirable or misplaced plant”. Weeds shall be controlled by manual, mechanical, or chemical methods, but NO chemicals are to be used in City’s Parks, on the turf, or at the Winston School, only in planters and medians throughout the City. The Project Coordinator may restrict the use of chemical weed control in certain areas.

Center island maintenance shall include the removal of weeds growing in all paved or unpaved surfaces of the center island.
 Disease and Pest Control: Disease, insect and Pest Control: The Contractor shall regularly inspect all landscaped areas for presence of disease, insect or rodent infestation. The Contractor shall advise the Project Coordinator within four (4) days if disease, insect or rodent infestation is found; Contractor shall identify the disease, insect or rodent and specify control measures to be taken. Upon approval by the Project Coordinator, the Contractor shall implement the approved control measures, exercising extreme caution in the application of all sprays, dusts, or other materials utilized.

Approved control measures shall be continued until the disease, insect or rodent is controlled to the satisfaction of the Project Coordinator. The Contractor shall utilize all safeguards necessary during disease, insect or rodent control operations to ensure safety of the public and the employees of the Contractor, in accordance with current standard practices accepted by the State of California Dept. of Food and Agriculture. If contractor is unable to control the pest or disease, a pest control company will be hired and the billing will be deducted from contractor’ monthly payment.
29 February 22, 2022 Item 04
All individuals who supervise the mixing and application of herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides shall possess valid Qualified Applicators Certificate for Category B issued to them by the State Dept. of Food and Agriculture.

SHRUBS AND VINES
Pruning
 Shrubs and vines shall be pruned to maintain growth within space limitations, to maintain or enhance the natural growth habit, or to eliminate diseased or damaged growth. Some species shall be trimmed appropriately to influence flowering and fruiting, or to improve vigor.
 Shrubs and vines must be trimmed as needed to permit unobstructed passage to residents or vehicles. Trimming near vehicular entry or exits shall be carried out to prevent sight restrictions.
 Shrubs shall be pruned to conform with the design concept of the landscape.

Individual shrubs shall not be clipped into balled or boxed forms, except where specifically instructed.
 Vines shall be pruned to control growth and direction, and shall not be allowed to grow over windows, doors or other structural features, unless directed by a representative of the Facilities Manager. Vines shall not be allowed to grow over the crowns of shrubs or trees.
 Pruning work shall be accomplished to promote structural strength and accentuate the plant
Fertilization
 Most shrubs and vines should be fertilized annually. Plants that have reached maturity may not require annual fertilization.
 All actively growing plants, not yet at maturity, shall be fertilized yearly during the months of February through March. Apply an appropriate organic slowrelease, long lasting complete fertilizer, controlled release fertilizer, or plant tablets at the manufacturer’s recommended application rate.  All plants shall be observed for signs of nutrient deficiencies and treated to correct deficiencies throughout the year. Nutrient deficiency shall be brought to the attention of the Landscape Specialist and properly identified prior to treatment.
30 February 22, 2022 Item 04
 Contractor shall exclusively use approved natural organic fertilizer “Nature Safe” or equal for all turf, plants, shrubs, and trees.

GROUND COVERS
Trimming
 Prune groundcover as required to contain perimeter growth to within bed areas where adjacent to walks, curbs, and structures. Mature groundcover will be maintained at a consistent appearance with a beveled or rolled edge at hard surfaces.
 Ground covers shall not be allowed to touch or cover the crowns of shrubs and trees.
 Some ground covers may require cutting back to remove woody growth and promote vigor. This shall be performed at the direction of the Landscape Specialist.

Fertilization
 Fertilization shall coincide with the growing season of each specific ground cover. One application of a complete fertilizer in the spring, per manufacturer’s recommended rate, adequate for established ground covers.  April 1 to April 15: apply granular fertilizer 12-12-12 at a rate of 1-pound actual nitrogen per 1000 square feet. This rate is 8.5 lbs. per 1000 sq. ft. or 365 lbs. per acre.
 May 15 to May 31: apply granular fertilizer 21-0-0 ammonium sulphate at a rate of one-half pound of nitrogen per 1000 square feet. This rate is 2.4 lbs. per 1000 sq. ft. or 1051 lbs. per acre.
 July 1 to July 15: apply granular fertilizer 32-0-0 ammonium nitrate at a rate of one-half pound actual nitrogen per 1000 square feet. Rate 1.6 lbs. per 1000 sq. ft. or 68 lbs. per acre.
 September 1 to September 15: apply granular fertilizer 16-16-16 at a rate of one pound of nitrogen per 1000 square feet. Rate 6.2 lbs. per 1000 sq. ft. 0. or 275 lbs. per acre.
 Plant materials shall be fertilized where there are signs of nutritional deficiencies or a desire for additional growth-this should be scheduled four (4) times per year.
 Contractor shall exclusively use approved natural organic fertilizer “Nature Safe” or equal for all turf, plants, shrubs, and trees. 31 February 22, 2022 Item 04

DISEASE AND PEST CONTROL
 All chemical controls must be applied under the supervision of a licensed and qualified applicator who possesses a valid California Qualified Pesticide Applicator License.
 A qualified pest control applicator, following the procedures set forth in the labeling of the product, as required by law.
 Healthy plants should be able to withstand minor disease and insect damage without controls. Routine application of pesticides shall not be practiced, as this destroys natural predator-prey relationships in the environment.  Where usually high infestations or infections occur, an accurate identification of the disease or insect shall be made, and the control selected with care, prior to application.
 The Landscape Specialist shall be provided with the labeling for each pesticide used before the product is applied.
 Gophers shall be trapped and relocated.
 Landscape Specialist to be advised prior to any application of weed control.

Weed Control
Contractor will at all times be in compliance with requirements for hazardous communications programs. Pest control specialist are to be trained and supervised in the safe application, storage, and disposal of chemicals in accordance with EPA, OSHA, and DPR regulations. Use of Round-Up, Ranger-Pro, or any other product with Glyphosate is prohibited. Violations of any of these requirements may lead to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per day, per violation.

Pre-Emergent Control
 All areas dressed in decomposed granite and artificial grass or natural ground shall be treated with pre-emergent herbicide twice yearly: in spring between February 15 and March 15, and in fall between October 15 and November 15.

The pre-emergent must receive 0.511 of rain or be watered in within 10 days of application.
 Areas seeded with wild-flowers shall be identified by the Landscape Specialist and shall not be treated with pre-emergent herbicide.
32 February 22, 2022 Item 04
 Weed control will also be addressed in the cracks of concrete paving and or adjacent cracks where weeds can germinate.
 Landscape Specialist to be advised prior to any application of weed control.

Post Emergent Control
 All areas shall be kept free of weeds. Organic Chemical and/or mechanical means may be used as appropriate. If any weeding is not performed, maintenance will be considered unsatisfactory.
 Before applying herbicides, the type of weed shall be identified, and the control selected accordingly, using the most effective control for the species, the location and the season.
 Weeds shall not be allowed to grow in paved areas such as driveways, walks, curbs, gutters, etc. Weeds may be removed manually or sprayed with an herbicide. Dead weeds shall be removed from the paved areas.  The Landscape Specialist shall be provided with the labeling (MSDS) for each herbicide proposed before the product is applied.
 Post emergent shall be sprayed at the manufacturer’s recommended rates.  Weeds shall be controlled in turf areas. Mowing is not an acceptable method for weed control.
 All ground cover areas shall be maintained essentially free of weeds.  Certain weeds may not be susceptible to selective chemical or manual control. We expect this Contractor to provide a remedy should this situation arise.
 Landscape Specialist to be advised prior to any application of weed control.

DEBRIS REMOVAL
 Litter and trash including leaves, dog waste, rubbish, paper, bottles, cans, rocks, gravel, and other debris shall be removed from all areas on a weekly basis.
 All refuse resulting from the maintenance operation of properties shall be disposed of at locations designated by the Facilities Manager. 33 February 22, 2022 Item 04
 Hardscape (i.e. sidewalks, patios, driveways) shall be swept or vacuumed free of debris weekly.
 Brow Ditch shall be cleaned four (4) times per year in January, April, July, and October.
 Contractor shall inspect Tot Lot play area for litter, debris, or any dangerous materials daily – first thing in the morning. The sand shall be smoothed to a uniform appearance filling in any holes dug by children. If any equipment appears in need of repair contact Public Works immediately.

SURFACES
 All areas dressed in decomposed granite shall be raked and cleaned as needed, but not less than once every four (4) weeks. Re-compaction will be on an as needed basis, and at 90% compaction.
 All soil shall be regraded, as necessary, on a weekly basis. Rock cover will always cover the black waterproofing and metal termination bar at all planters.
 Paved sidewalks, medians, and patio areas shall be swept or vacuumed off on a weekly basis.
 Mulch and bark areas to flush out with all boxes to the top of the units.  Brow Ditch shall be cleaned four (4) times per year in January, April, July, and October.

IRRIGATION
 The irrigation shall be operated at an appropriate seasonal schedule, using the least amount of water necessary to maintain the growth, health, and vigor of all landscape plant materials.
 Clean and adjust sprinkler system to provide the best coverage possible from existing system. Turn on each zone, monitor for leaks or malfunctioning parts, and adjust for proper spray arch and maximum efficiency.
 Irrigation controllers shall be re-programmed at a minimum of once monthly in order to match plant material water needs to the irrigation applied.
 The contractor shall maintain a log of current sprinkler station times. A copy of the log shall be given to the Landscape Specialist after routine inspection. The log shall include, but is not limited to:

Controller location
34 February 22, 2022 Item 04
Scheduled days to run
Start times
Station location
Each station’s run time
End time
Contractor’s employee initial and date
 The contractor is required to employ the necessary qualified irrigation technician(s) to maintain and repair all irrigation systems on the property.

The contractor shall maintain a reasonable inventory of commonly required repair parts on the service vehicle in order to facilitate prompt irrigation system repairs. Every effort will be made to ensure that the parts and accessories match was to what was installed initially via Submittal. (To be made part of contract)
 Irrigation repairs shall be made with the same brand, make, and model of component where the use of a different part will adversely affect the system efficiency (i.e. sprinkler heads and emitters).
 When a sufficient amount of rainfall has occurred, the contractor will turn off the irrigation system until it is necessary to water again. A properly adjusted automatic rain shut off device may be used for this purpose.  Irrigation and sprinkling will be performed by contractor, as well as all maintenance of irrigation systems.
 Repairs to sprinkler equipment damaged by the contractor shall be the responsibility of the contractor, at no cost to the owner. If repair work is not accomplished in a timely manner, Landscape Specialist shall have work completed and deduct loss from monthly payment.
 Perform sprinkler check/inspection after each visit.
 Report and flag all water leaks and/or system malfunctions to the Facilities Manager.

REPLANTING AND EXTRA WORK
 Plant material which dies through the fault or neglect of the contractor, or due to preventable circumstances, shall be replaced with a specimen of the same species and of equal or similar size as the plant lost, at no cost to the owner.

This work must be coordinated/appproved with the Landscape Specialist. 35 February 22, 2022 Item 04
36 February 22, 2022 Item 04
37 February 22, 2022 Item 04
38 February 22, 2022 Item 04
39 February 22, 2022 Item 04
40 February 22, 2022 Item 04
41 February 22, 2022 Item 04
42 February 22, 2022 Item 04
43 February 22, 2022 Item 04
44 February 22, 2022 Item 04
45 February 22, 2022 Item 04
46 February 22, 2022 Item 04
47 February 22, 2022 Item 04
48 February 22, 2022 Item 04
49 February 22, 2022 Item 04
50 February 22, 2022 Item 04
51 February 22, 2022 Item 04
52 February 22, 2022 Item 04
53 February 22, 2022 Item 04
54 February 22, 2022 Item 04
55 February 22, 2022 Item 04
56 February 22, 2022 Item 04
57 February 22, 2022 Item 04
58 February 22, 2022 Item 04
59 February 22, 2022 Item 04
60 February 22, 2022 Item 04
61 February 22, 2022 Item 04
62 February 22, 2022 Item 04
63 February 22, 2022 Item 04
64 February 22, 2022 Item 04
65 February 22, 2022 Item 04
66 February 22, 2022 Item 04
67 February 22, 2022 Item 04
68 February 22, 2022 Item 04
69 February 22, 2022 Item 04
70 February 22, 2022 Item 04
71 February 22, 2022 Item 04
72 February 22, 2022 Item 04
73 February 22, 2022 Item 04
74 February 22, 2022 Item 04
75 February 22, 2022 Item 04
76 February 22, 2022 Item 04
77 February 22, 2022 Item 04
78 February 22, 2022 Item 04
79 February 22, 2022 Item 04
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Kseniia Izgarskaia, Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: February 22, 2022
SUBJECT: Approval of Additional Funding for the FY 2021-22 Water, Wastewater, and Pavement Improvements Project
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve additional funding for the 2021 Water, Wastewater, and Pavement Improvements Project totaling $80,000 as further described in the agenda report.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

City Council awarded a construction contract for the 2021 Water, Wastewater, Pavement Improvements Project (Project) to Piperin Corporation in July 2021. The project includes essential water system repairs including:

1. Water pressure regulating station repairs at 4th Street/Stratford Court and Forest Way;

2. Water pipeline horizontal boring under Camino del Mar (CDM), from 21st Street to Sand Barr Lane; and

3. Water pipeline replacement on Sand Barr Lane, from 18th Street to 20th Street.

The Project’s construction bid drawings and specifications were developed based on available historical records of the City’s water system. The original July 2021 contract with Piperin Corporation included $80,000 in contingency funds specifically related to the water improvement components of the contract, which is approximately 10% of the value of the contract’s water items and consistent with industry standards, to address potential construction change orders related to differing site conditions and essential improvements for water-related items.

At this time, the Project’s construction is nearly complete; however, actual encountered conditions have been substantially different from what was shown on the historical construction drawings including different water infrastructure layout, locations, sizes, materials, and conditions. The original contingency has been depleted; therefore, an additional contingency authorization for $80,000 is required to complete the Project. The additional contingency will be used to address the unexpected conditions and complete additional essential improvements to the water system, including additional control valves to reduce the public impacts and water loss of future shutdowns; and provide a sufficient contingency to complete the necessary water-related aspects of the Project. 1 February 22, 2022 Item 05
City Council Agenda Report
FY 2021-22 Water, Wastewater, Pavement Improvements Project – Additional Funding Request February 22, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT:

On July 26, 2021, unused funds from the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Water Fund Capital Improvement Program were reallocated by the Council to Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to cover the cost of this project. Approval of this item will not require a budget adjustment. Sufficient funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Operating and Capital budget to allocate to this project.

Available funding sources are listed in Table A below:

Table A: Project Funding Sources

PROJECT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
FY2022 Approved Funding
Water CIP (FY2022) 51.7000.7017 $80,000
TOTAL: $80,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

This project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as it involves improvements in the public right-of-way to existing facilities, including streets, sidewalks, and gutters; sewerage and other public utility services.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

On July 26, 2021, the City Council approved a construction contract with Piperin Corporation for the 2021 Water, Wastewater, and Pavement Improvements Project.

On June 21, 2021, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budget.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Construction of essential capital improvements, including improvements to the City’s water system, are listed as Tier 1 essential services in the City Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
2 February 22, 2022 Item 05
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Amanda Lee, Principal Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning & Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: February 22, 2022
SUBJECT: Adoption of City Council Policy: Housing Impact Statement for Pending Discretionary Land Use Decisions (6
th Cycle Housing Element Program 5B)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) establishing a new City Council Policy for inclusion of a “Housing Impact Statement” within agenda reports prepared for pending discretionary land use and planning decisions. Adoption of the new City Council Policy will complete the required action for implementation of 6 th
Cycle Housing Element Program 5B.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

On December 13, 2021, the City Council re-adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element covering the planning period 2021-2029 to address revisions requested by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element is currently in the process of HCD certification review; however, the timelines for implementation have already started based on the date of City Council adoption on December 13, 2021.

The City’s adopted Housing Element reflects the importance of protecting and enhancing the local housing supply consistent with the State Legislature’s declaration of a statewide housing crisis. Housing Element Chapter 4 (Housing Action Plan) sets forth the specific policies and action programs that the City will implement over the 6th Cycle to achieve the City’s stated long-term housing goals and objectives. More specifically, Housing Element Program 5B requires that the City establish a written policy to require that a “Housing Impact Statement” be included in all agenda reports for discretionary land use and planning decisions of the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council.

The intent of Program 5B is to demonstrate the City’s commitment to analyze how proposed development actions would meet the City’s allocated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and housing goals and understand the potential impact upon 1 February 22, 2022 Item 06
City Council Agenda Report
Housing Impact Statement Council Policy
February 22, 2022

housing options and affordability levels within the City prior to approval. The findings of each project-level analysis are expected to be disclosed within a “Housing Impact Statement” in the respective agenda report to inform the public and decision makers prior to final action.

This type of analysis would be conducted for agenda reports relating to pending legislative actions and discretionary quasi-judicial actions as follows:

 Legislative actions involve the adoption of policies, resolutions, and ordinances and would include the processing of amendments such as Community Plan amendments; new land use plans or amendments thereto; new zoning, subdivision, and construction ordinances or amendments thereto; amendments to the Local Coastal Program; new specific plans or amendments thereto; and development agreements.
 Quasi-judicial actions involve the application of adopted policies and ordinances to projects as part of discretionary review on a permit or action before a decision maker. This includes binding, appealable decisions involving the application of adopted land use policies, subdivision regulations, zoning regulations, and building construction regulations to discretionary development applications, as applicable.

The most typical quasi-judicial actions relating to housing capacity include pending applications for subdivision maps, coastal development permits, conditional use permits, floodplain development permits, and Design Review Board (DRB) permits.

Planning-related projects where this type of analysis and housing impact statement would not be required include applications with no potential to affect the capacity of housing in the City (i.e., Tree, Scenic Views/Sunlight applications).

The required Housing Impact Statement is intended to explicitly address the relationship between a proposed action and the City’s adopted Housing Element. In accordance with the proposed policy, the Statement would include a brief description of benefits the proposed action would accomplish towards meeting the City’s housing goals; or conversely, a description of any impacts towards meeting the City’s remaining unmet RHNA need for lower income units during the current eight-year housing cycle.

In some cases, a proposed action may have no impact on the local housing supply/ affordability and would be stated as such within the agenda report. In other cases, the decision on a project may have ramifications that effect the City (i.e. an action that triggers “no net loss” requirements). Under “no net loss” law, throughout the eight-year housing cycle, the City must maintain “adequate sites” capacity to accommodate its unmet RHNA (specified in the Housing Element as the number of units required by household income category). Per State law, the City may not take any action to reduce a parcel’s residential 2 February 22, 2022 Item 06
City Council Agenda Report
Housing Impact Statement Council Policy
February 22, 2022

density (e.g. by downzoning, modifying zoning or development standards, or imposing a moratorium), unless the City makes a finding that the remaining sites identified in its Housing Element sites inventory would be sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s unmet RHNA for each income category. Otherwise, within 180-days of a project approval that reduces capacity to meet the RHNA, the City is required to identify replacement sites in order to demonstrate there will be no net loss of residential unit capacity.

As recognized during the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning process, identifying adequate sites for lower income households is particularly challenging within the City of Del Mar due to a number of factors (i.e. parcel size, development potential, environmental constraints, etc.) Housing Program 5B, to incorporate housing impact statements in agenda reports, was included in the 6th Cycle Housing Element as a measure to emphasize the importance of protecting and enhancing the local housing supply and disclose potential impacts before a final decision is made on pending legislative or discretionary permit actions with potential to effect housing capacity.

The Resolution included as Attachment A to this report includes the proposed City Council Policy as “Exhibit A”, which as set forth will facilitate compliance with State law and implements 6th Cycle Program 5B.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Housing Element implementation is a City Council priority and is required by State law.

The requested action implements the 6th Cycle Housing Element (Program 5B).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A - Resolution Adopting a Housing Impact Statement City Council Policy 3 February 22, 2022 Item 06
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY

REQUIRING THE INCLUSION OF A HOUSING IMPACT

STATEMENT IN AGENDA REPORTS FOR PENDING

DISCRETIONARY LAND USE AND PLANNING DECISIONS, AS
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE 6

TH CYCLE HOUSING
ELEMENT PROGRAM 5B
WHEREAS, the City maintains a City Council Policy Book with adopted Council policies stating the City Council’s expectations for policies and procedures relating to General Administration, Boards, Commissions and Committees, and City Council Meeting Procedures; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element on December 13, 2021, which included Program 5B within the Housing Plan indicating the City’s intent to adopt a Council policy requiring the inclusion of a “Housing Impact Statement” within agenda reports for pending discretionary land use and planning decisions; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State law the Housing Element is intended to facilitate opportunities for a variety of housing types at a variety of income levels to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the “Housing Impact Statement” is to analyze and disclose how a proposed action would meet the City’s RHNA allocation and adopted housing goals as stated in the adopted Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the Housing Impact Statement is intended to be an informative statement that explicitly addresses the relationship between the proposed action and the City’s adopted Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, each Housing Impact Statement would include a brief description of the potential benefits the proposed action would accomplish towards meeting the City’s housing goals; or a description of any impacts upon the current housing supply and/or conflicts associated with the proposed action towards meeting the City’s housing goals; or in some cases may have no impact on the local housing supply or housing affordability; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required; and
4 February 22, 2022 Item 06
Resolution No. 2022-__

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, hereby ratifies and approves City Council Policy 117 as set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council Policy 117 be incorporated into the City Council Policy Book.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 22
nd day of February, 2022.
_____________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
5 February 22, 2022 Item 06
Resolution No. 2022-__

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Acting City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022- XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 22nd day of February, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
City of Del Mar
6 February 22, 2022 Item 06
“Exhibit A”
1 CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
117

INCLUSION OF A HOUSING IMPACT STATEMENT IN

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORTS
DATE ADOPTED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-XX
PAGES: 1 OF 1
POLICY:

Purpose and Intent: The State Legislature declared a statewide housing crisis; and the City’s Housing Element reflects the importance of protecting and enhancing the local housing supply.

As part of the City’s adopted 6
th Cycle Housing Element covering years 2021-2029, the City Council adopted Program 5B committing to establish a City Council policy that a “Housing Impact Statement” be included in all staff reports for discretionary land use and planning decisions. The intent is to demonstrate the City’s commitment to analyze how proposed development actions would meet the City’s allocated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and adopted housing goals as stated in the Housing Element, prior to approval of discretionary actions with the potential to impact available housing options and affordability levels within the City.

Procedure: A “Housing Impact Statement” shall be included within each agenda report for pending decisions of the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council on discretionary land use and planning permits or legislative actions.

This type of analysis would be conducted for agenda reports relating to pending legislative actions and discretionary quasi-judicial actions as follows:
 Legislative actions involve the adoption of policies, resolutions, and ordinances and would include the processing of amendments such as Community Plan amendments; new land use plans or amendments thereto; new zoning, subdivision, and construction ordinances or amendments thereto; amendments to the Local Coastal Program; new specific plans or amendments thereto; and development agreements.
 Quasi-judicial actions involve the application of adopted policies and ordinances to projects as part of discretionary review on a permit or action before a decision maker. This includes binding, appealable decisions involving the application of adopted land use policies, subdivision regulations, zoning regulations, and building construction regulations to discretionary development applications, as applicable. The most typical quasi-judicial actions relating to housing capacity include pending applications for subdivision maps, coastal development permits, conditional use permits, floodplain development permits, and Design Review Board (DRB) permits.

Planning-related projects where this type of analysis and housing impact statement would not be required include applications with no potential to affect the capacity of housing in the City (i.e., Tree, Scenic Views/Sunlight applications).
7 February 22, 2022 Item 06
“Exhibit A”
2 Content for Housing Impact Statement: The Housing Impact Statement is intended to be an informative statement that explicitly addresses the relationship between the proposed action and the City’s adopted Housing Element. Following are examples of the type of content that could be included in the Housing Impact Statement for consideration by respective decision makers:
 State whether the proposed action would facilitate the development of housing consistent with the adopted Housing Element.

Provide details to specify how the proposed action would facilitate housing consistent with the Housing Element, including the City’s assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); and where applicable, identify the number of dwelling units proposed, the proposed density, and the targeted affordability level of the units.  State whether the proposed action would be in conflict with the adopted Housing Element.

Provide details to specify how the proposed action would be in conflict with the Housing Element, including RHNA; and where applicable, identify the number of dwelling units proposed, the proposed density, and the targeted affordability level of the units.  State whether the proposed action would have no impact on the local housing supply or housing affordability.

If applicable, explicitly state why the proposed action would not have an impact on the local housing supply or housing affordability.
8 February 22, 2022 Item 06
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
___________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable City Council Members
FROM: Mayor Dwight Worden and Councilmember Dave Druker, Council Liaisons to the Sustainability Advisory Committee
DATE: February 22, 2022
SUBJECT: Proposed Letter of Opposition to the California Public Utilities Commission Regarding Net Energy Metering 3.0 Proceeding
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Mayor Worden and Councilmember Druker request the City Council approve the submittal of a letter of opposition (Attachment A) to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding the Net Energy Metering (NEM) 3.0 proceeding.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
At the February 7, 2022, City Council meeting, Mayor Worden and Councilmember Druker presented a letter of opposition regarding NEM 3.0. It was suggested that one minor change be made related to equity concerns for low-income customers. The attached revised letter reflects that clarification.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Letter of Opposition to NEM 3.0 Proceeding 1 February 22, 2022 Item 07
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us February 22, 2022
President Alice Reynolds
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Oppose Proposed Decision in Net Energy Metering Rulemaking (R. 20-08-020) Dear President Reynolds,
As a member of the Clean Energy Alliance (CEA), the City of Del Mar (City) submits this letter to oppose the Proposed Decision (PD) in the Net Energy Metering (NEM) proceedings, Rulemaking (R.) 20-08-020, also known as NEM 3.0.

As drafted on December 13, 2021, NEM 3.0 would create a significant disincentive to installing small-scale solar energy systems in California. Specifically, the PD would eliminate long-standing incentives for solar customer generators, penalize customers for the size of their solar systems, and would make it harder for customer-sited solar to continue to grow sustainability as mandated by State law. More simply, adopting the PD in its current form would result in widespread negative impacts on the entire solar industry.

The City recognizes that the PD addresses important equity concerns raised by the Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) and other parties, and support exemptions from certain charges and beneficial rate components designed for low-income customers. Any NEM

3.0 decision should address legitimate equity concerns. However, by adopting a fixed grid participation charge of $8.00 per kilowatt per month for residential customers (an additional $48 per month on average to access the grid) and using a reduced compensation rate for excess power generation instead of the retail rate, the PD would upend the “economics” of “going solar” by extending the amount of time necessary for a solar customer to recoup their initial investment. This is the wrong approach when Del Mar’s Climate Action Plan and State climate goals demand we accelerate the clean energy transition if we are to avoid the worst of the climate crisis. More solar energy is critical to achieving carbon neutrality – the PD should not be structured so that it creates disincentives to generating more clean energy.

The City of Del Mar offers the following suggestions to improve the NEM 3.0 rulemaking:
 Strengthen NEM to expand access to all households, particularly of low-andmoderate income; 2 February 22, 2022 Item 07
Net Energy Metering Proposed Decision, R. 20-08-020
February 22, 2022

 Expand access to other clean energy technologies that pair with solar, such as batteries;
 Ensure that the solar generation continues to grow to meet State climate goals; and
 Exclude provisions that result in high monthly fixed fees or eliminating credits for sharing electricity with the power grid.

Without the proposed changes above, the City of Del Mar agrees with the Clean Energy Alliance and opposes the Proposed Decision, R. 20-08-020.

Sincerely,
Dwight Worden
Mayor
cc: Del Mar City Council
Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen
Commissioner Darcie Houck
Commissioner John Reynolds
Service List R. 20-08-020
Ashley Jones, City Manager
3 February 22, 2022 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Mike Stein, Fire Chief
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: February 22, 2022
SUBJECT: Fire Department Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover, and Management/Administrative Assessment
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation from Fire Administration staff and Fitch and Associates, LLC, and discuss and provide feedback as may be desired.

BACKGROUND:

The cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach contracted with Fitch & Associates, LLC, to conduct a Fire Department Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover (SOC), and a management/administrative assessment. Standards of Cover are defined as those written policies and procedures that establish the distribution and concentration of fixed and mobile resources of a fire service organization.

One of the issues the fire service has historically faced is how to define the levels of service for the community it serves. There have been many attempts to create a standard methodology for determining the exact number of firefighters, fire stations, or fire inspectors a community needs. In 2001, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) proposed a deployment standard that was successfully adopted as NFPA 1710.

However, this national deployment standard does not recognize local issues, conditions, service demands or community needs. Additionally, very few departments in this country can meet the response time and staffing level outlined in the standard. Hence, many fire service professionals view this deployment model as a goal.

As part of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) process, a Standards of Cover document should be developed and adopted by the agency having jurisdiction. Like NFPA 1710, the Standards of Cover outlines an agency’s service level objectives; however, it uses a systems approach to deployment rather than a one-sizefits-all prescriptive formula. In a comprehensive approach, each agency should be able to match local need (risks and expectations) with the costs of various levels of service. 1 February 22, 2022 Item 08
City Council Staff Report
Fire Department Standards of Cover & Management/Admin Assessment February 22, 2022

This Standards of Cover document is a rational and systematic way of looking at the basic services provided by the Fire Department. The purpose of this document is to provide a system which will assist with the following within the service areas of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach:
 Assessing fire and non-fire risks;
 Defining baseline and benchmark emergency response performance standards;  Determining apparatus and staffing patterns;
 Evaluating workload and ideal unit utilization;
 Measuring service delivery performance; and
 Supporting strategic planning and policy development relative to resource procurement and allocation.

Between August 2019 and June 2020, Fitch & Associates worked cooperatively with Fire Administration and labor representatives of the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach to assess the operational capabilities of the agencies. The process included a review of agency response data, GIS mapping, facilities, equipment, as well as interviews with key staff. Two reports were created: the Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover (Attachment A) and the Management/Administrative Assessment (Attachment B). After receiving the draft reports, the addition of creating a formal response time standard for Encinitas was added to the Fitch & Associates contract, adding to the completion time of the final documents.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover
Overall, the Fire Department is performing well within the current system. The service levels across the three agencies are fairly equal, which is difficult to achieve for most agencies operating under a cooperative agreement. This is due in part to the spacing of fire stations, staffing levels, and standardized response matrix; as well as similarities of the topography and building stock. The North County JPA Dispatch Center provides 911 call handling within 1 minute and 12 seconds (90% -all call types), which falls well within industry best practices. The firefighters’ turnout time is within 1 minute and 48 seconds (90% -all call types), which is within the range of best practices amongst comparable fire agencies. These are contributing factors to the equity of service across the three cities.

The following are the overall recommendations from the Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover (Attachment A):

Outcome Measures and Analysis Recommendations:

The Department should start tracking more closely the percentage fire damage to structures within the NFIRS reporting system. Over time, tracking percentage of fire damage will be a more reliable method of measuring outcomes as other modifications to the system are made. The Department should also consider validating its critical task 2 February 22, 2022 Item 08
City Council Staff Report
Fire Department Standards of Cover & Management/Admin Assessment February 22, 2022

analysis, especially in terms of effective response force (ERF) capabilities. The Department has sufficient data to show arrival times for all the different call types it responds to, but is unable to demonstrate the ability to complete the estimated critical tasks within a reasonable period after arrival. This process will ensure that the Department can perform beyond just response times and identify performance gaps that can be addressed with additional training or updating equipment.

Management/Administrative Assessment
The Management/Administrative Assessment identified operational and administrative growth and efficiencies. The following are the recommendations made at the conclusion of the analysis (Attachment B):
 Emergency Preparedness Program – Provide program-level span of control assistance to the Senior Management Analyst or hire an Emergency Management specialist for all three cities;
 Provide program-level span of control assistance to the Administrative Battalion Chief;
 Provide program-level span of control to the Deputy Fire Chief;  Refine the Fire Prevention Inspection Program;
 Conduct an assessment of the agency’s culture in regard to diversity, equity, and inclusivity in the workplace;
 Develop an expanded/more efficient internal communication strategy from the Fire Chief’s office;
 Develop a Community-Driven Strategic Plan;
 Explore Accreditation through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI);
 Implement strategies to standardize administrative processes between the three agencies;
 Explore the use of fire prevention inspection fees to encourage efficiency in enforcement and financial sustainability for the program; and  Explore the feasibility of assigning all Del Mar and Solana Beach fire apparatus repairs and maintenance to the Encinitas repair facility.

The Fire Department agrees with these recommendations. Some can be implemented immediately, while others will need resources (time/investment) to implement. These recommendations will contribute to a safer and more effective environment for the communities within the service area.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
3 February 22, 2022 Item 08
City Council Staff Report
Fire Department Standards of Cover & Management/Admin Assessment February 22, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA).

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item and is not related to the City Council Goals and Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover – August 2021 Attachment B – Management/Administrative Assessment – October 2021 4 February 22, 2022 Item 08
August 2021

COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
AND

STANDARDS OF COVER
Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach Fire Departments
Encinitas, CA
Prepared by:

FITCH & ASSOCIATES, LLC
2901 Williamsburg Terrace #G § Platte City § Missouri § 64079 816.431.2600 § www.fitchassoc.com
5 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page i © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND STANDARDS OF COVER
TABLE of CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _________________________________________________________________________ 1 DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY SERVED ___________________________________________________________ 2 INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________________________ 2 LEGAL BASIS _________________________________________________________________________________ 2 HISTORY OF THE AGENCY ________________________________________________________________________ 3 FINANCIAL BASIS ______________________________________________________________________________ 5 Del Mar Overview_________________________________________________________________________ 5 Encinitas Overview ________________________________________________________________________ 6 Solana Beach Overview ____________________________________________________________________ 7 AREA DESCRIPTION ____________________________________________________________________________ 7 Geography ______________________________________________________________________________ 7 Figure 1: San Diego County, CA ______________________________________________________________________ 8 Figure 2: Map of Jurisdiction and Adjacent Fire Service Agencies ___________________________________________ 9 Topography _____________________________________________________________________________ 9 Climate ________________________________________________________________________________ 10 Population and Demographic Features _______________________________________________________ 10 Figure 3: Population Density by Census Block – 2019____________________________________________________ 11 Figure 4: Annual Population Change 2019-2024________________________________________________________ 12 Figure 5: Median Age – 2019_______________________________________________________________________ 13 Figure 6: Median Household Income – 2019___________________________________________________________ 14 Disaster Potentials _______________________________________________________________________ 14 SERVICES PROVIDED__________________________________________________________________________ 16 SERVICE DELIVERY PROGRAMS ____________________________________________________________________ 16 Fire Suppression _________________________________________________________________________ 16 Rescue_________________________________________________________________________________ 16 Emergency Medical Services _______________________________________________________________ 17 Marine Safety ___________________________________________________________________________ 17 Hazardous Materials _____________________________________________________________________ 17 CURRENT DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY _________________________________________________________________ 18 Fire Stations and Apparatus________________________________________________________________ 18 ENC Station 1: 415 2nd Street, Encinitas, CA 92024______________________________________________________ 18 Table 1: ENC Station 1 Resources ___________________________________________________________________ 18 ENC Station 2: 618 Birmingham Drive, Cardiff, CA 92007_________________________________________________ 19 Table 2: ENC Station 2 Resources ___________________________________________________________________ 19 ENC Station 3: 801 Orpheus Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 ___________________________________________________ 19 Table 3: ENC Station 3 Resources ___________________________________________________________________ 19 ENC Station 4: 2011 Village Park Way, Encinitas, CA 92024 _______________________________________________ 20 Table 4: ENC Station 4 Resources ___________________________________________________________________ 20 ENC Station 5: 540 Balour Drive, Encinitas, CA 92024 ___________________________________________________ 20 Table 5: ENC Station 5 Resources ___________________________________________________________________ 20 6 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page ii © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
ENC Station 6: 770 Rancho Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, CA 92024 ___________________________________________ 21 Table 6: ENC Station 6 Resources ___________________________________________________________________ 21 SOL Station 1: 500 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Solana Beach, CA 92075 _________________________________________ 21 Table 7: SOL Station 1 Resources____________________________________________________________________ 21 DMR Station 1: 2200 Jimmy Durante Boulevard. Del Mar, CA 92014 _______________________________________ 22 Table 8: DMR Station 1 Resources___________________________________________________________________ 22 CURRENT STAFFING STRATEGY ____________________________________________________________________ 22 Organizational Structure __________________________________________________________________ 22 Figure 7: Encinitas Fire & Marine Services Department Organizational Chart ________________________________ 23 Administration, Emergency Services, and Support Staff __________________________________________ 23 COMMUNITY RESPONSE HISTORY_______________________________________________________________ 25 METHODOLOGY______________________________________________________________________________ 25 Figure 8: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – DMR Jurisdiction _____________________________________ 26 Figure 9: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – ENC Jurisdiction ______________________________________ 26 Figure 10: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – SOL Jurisdiction_____________________________________ 27 Figure 11: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – DMR, ENC, and SOL Combined Jurisdictions_______________ 28 Figure 12: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – Mutual/Auto-Aid Out ________________________________ 28 Table 9: Number of Incidents by Call Category and Jurisdiction – DMR, ENC, SOL _____________________________ 29 Table 10: Number of Incidents by Call Category and Jurisdiction – DMR, ENC, and SOL Combined Jurisdictions and Mutual/Auto-Aid Out_____________________________________________________________________________ 30 Table 11: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction and Program – DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units ________________________________________________________________________________ 32 Table 12: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction – AMR and Outside Agency Units ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 34 Table 13: Overall: Total Calls and Average Call per Day by Month__________________________________________ 35 Figure 13: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Month_____________________________________________________ 36 Table 14: Overall: total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week ____________________________________ 37 Figure 14: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Day of Week ________________________________________________ 37 Table 15: Overall: Total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day _____________________________________ 38 Figure 15: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day ________________________________________________ 39 Figure 16: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – DMR Jurisdiction _________________________________ 40 Figure 17: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – ENC Jurisdiction__________________________________ 40 Figure 18: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – SOL Jurisdiction__________________________________ 41 Table 16: Overall Workload by Station and Jurisdiction – DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units _____________________ 42 Table 17: Overall Workload by Station and Jurisdiction – Outside Agency Units_______________________________ 43 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY RESPONSE PERFORMANCE ___________________________________________________ 44 Call Processing or Dispatch Time ____________________________________________________________ 44 Turnout Time ___________________________________________________________________________ 44 Travel Time _____________________________________________________________________________ 44 Total Response Time______________________________________________________________________ 44 Table 18: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency __________________________________________________________________ 46 Table 19: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency _______________________________________________________________ 47 Comparison to Best Practices_______________________________________________________________ 47 Table 20: Comparison of Response Times of DMR, ENC, SOL to Best Practices and National Experience ___________ 48 Figure 19: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions _________________________________________________ 48 7 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page iii © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 21: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in DMR Jurisdiction by Agency______________________________________________________________________________________ 49 Table 22: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in DMR Jurisdiction by Agency ____________________________________________________________________________ 50 Table 23: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in ENC Jurisdiction by Agency______________________________________________________________________________________ 51 Table 24: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in ENC Jurisdiction by Agency ____________________________________________________________________________ 52 Table 25: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in SOL Jurisdiction by Agency______________________________________________________________________________________ 53 Table 26: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in SOL Jurisdiction by Agency ____________________________________________________________________________ 54 Table 27: 90th Percentile Travel Times by Unit Type – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency ________________________________________________________________________________________ 55 Table 28: 90th Percentile Response Times by Unit – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency ________________________________________________________________________________________ 56 Figure 20: Distribution of Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit – All Emergency Calls____________________________ 57 Figure 21: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit – All Emergency Calls _____________________________ 57 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS & GUIDING PRINCIPLES_______________________________________________ 58 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK LEVELS _________________________________________________ 59 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY _________________________________________________________________ 59 Methodology ___________________________________________________________________________ 59 Figure 22: Community Risk Assessment Process________________________________________________________ 59 Figure 23: Probability and Consequence Matrix ________________________________________________________ 60 Planning Areas/Zones_____________________________________________________________________ 61 Community Characteristics of Risk___________________________________________________________ 61 Table 29: Natural Hazards Impacting San Diego County__________________________________________________ 61 GEOGRAPHIC AND WEATHER-RELATED RISKS __________________________________________________________ 62 Flooding _______________________________________________________________________________ 62 Extreme Weather ________________________________________________________________________ 62 Wildland Fires___________________________________________________________________________ 63 Earthquake _____________________________________________________________________________ 63 TRANSPORTATION RISKS ________________________________________________________________________ 63 Aviation _______________________________________________________________________________ 63 Highway _______________________________________________________________________________ 64 Traffic Calming Strategies _________________________________________________________________ 65 Population Density, Development, and Growth_________________________________________________ 65 Figure 24: Population Density by Census Block – 2019___________________________________________________ 66 Figure 25: Urban and Rural Call Density Map with Current Stations ________________________________________ 68 Commensurate System Evaluation __________________________________________________________ 69 Table 30: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Travel Time _____________________________________ 69 Figure 26: Current Fire Station Bleed Map for 6-Minute Travel Time _______________________________________ 70 Figure 27: Current Fire Station and SOL 1 Bleed Map for 6-Minute Travel Time _______________________________ 71 Urban and Rural Differentiated Performance Objectives – Encinitas Only ____________________________ 72 Table 31: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time – ENC 2, 5, 6 ___ 72 Figure 28: Current Fire Station Bleed Map for 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time –ENC 2, 5, 6 ______ 73 Table 32: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time – ENC 3, 5, 6 ___ 73 8 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page iv © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 29: Current Fire Station Bleed Map for 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time –ENC 3, 5, 6 ______ 74 Figure 30: Current Fire Station Bleed Maps for 6-Minute Urban Travel Times ________________________________ 75 Figure 31: Annual Population Change - 2019-2024______________________________________________________ 76 Figure 32: Median Age – 2019______________________________________________________________________ 77 Figure 33: Projected Growth in Call Volume __________________________________________________________ 79 RISK ASSESSMENT ____________________________________________________________________________ 79 Fire Suppression Services __________________________________________________________________ 79 Table 33: Total Fire Related Calls by Nature of Call______________________________________________________ 80 Table 34: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month______________________________________ 81 Figure 34: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Month _________________________________________________ 82 Table 35: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week_________________________________ 83 Figure 35: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Day of Week ____________________________________________ 83 Table 36: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day _________________________________ 84 Figure 36: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day _____________________________________________ 85 Table 37: Workload by Station for Fire Related Calls ____________________________________________________ 86 Table 38: Number of Responding Units by Fire Related Call Type __________________________________________ 87 Figure 37: Percentage of Structure Fire Calls by Number of Responding Units ________________________________ 88 Figure 38: Heat Map for Fire Related Incidents_________________________________________________________ 89 Table 39: Occupancy-Level Risk Matrix ______________________________________________________________ 91 Figure 39: High-Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone ______________________________________________ 92 Figure 40: Moderate-Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone __________________________________________ 93 Figure 41: Low-Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone_______________________________________________ 94 Figure 42: Probability and Consequence Matrix for Fire Risk ______________________________________________ 95 Table 40: Critical Tasks for Fire Responses - Low Risk____________________________________________________ 96 Table 41: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Fire Responses - Low Risk______________________________ 96 Table 42: Critical Tasks for Fire Responses - Moderate Risk _______________________________________________ 97 Table 43: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Fire Responses - Moderate Risk _________________________ 97 Table 44: Critical Tasks for Fire Responses - High Risk ___________________________________________________ 97 Table 45: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Fire Responses - High Risk _____________________________ 98 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES___________________________________________________________________ 99 Community Service Demands_______________________________________________________________ 99 Table 46: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month _____________________________________ 99 Figure 43: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Month________________________________________________ 100 Table 47: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week _______________________________ 101 Figure 44: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Day of Week ___________________________________________ 101 Table 48: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day ________________________________ 102 Figure 45: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day____________________________________________ 103 Table 49: Total EMS Related Calls by Nature of Call ____________________________________________________ 104 Table 50: Workload by Station for EMS Related Calls___________________________________________________ 106 Table 51: Number of Responding Units by EMS Related Call Type_________________________________________ 107 Transport _____________________________________________________________________________ 108 Table 52: EMS Non-Transport and Transport Calls by Call Type___________________________________________ 108 Figure 46: AMR Average EMS Calls and EMS Calls with Transports per Day by Hour of Day_____________________ 109 Figure 47: Heat Map for EMS Related Incidents _______________________________________________________ 110 Community Risks _______________________________________________________________________ 111 Figure 48: Top 10 Leading Causes of Death in San Diego County, 2018 ____________________________________ 112 Figure 49: Top Five Leading Causes of Death, 2018 ____________________________________________________ 113 Probability/Consequence of EMS Risk _______________________________________________________ 113 Figure 50: Probability and Consequence Matrix for EMS Risk ____________________________________________ 113 Critical Task Analysis ____________________________________________________________________ 114 9 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page v © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 53: Critical Tasks for EMS Responses - Low Risk __________________________________________________ 114 Table 54: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for EMS Responses - Low Risk ____________________________ 114 Table 55: Critical Tasks for EMS Responses - Moderate Risk _____________________________________________ 115 Table 56: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for EMS Responses - Moderate Risk _______________________ 115 Table 57: Critical Tasks for EMS Responses - High Risk__________________________________________________ 115 Table 58: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for EMS Responses - High Risk ____________________________ 115 Hazardous Materials Services _____________________________________________________________ 116 Community Service Demands______________________________________________________________ 116 Table 59: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Program __________________________ 117 Figure 51: Heat Map for Hazardous Materials Incidents ________________________________________________ 118 Figure 52: Probability and Consequence Hazardous Materials Matrix______________________________________ 119 Table 60: Critical Tasks for Hazardous Materials Responses - Low Risk _____________________________________ 120 Table 61: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Hazardous Materials Responses - Low Risk _______________ 120 Table 62: Critical Tasks for Hazardous Materials Responses - Moderate Risk ________________________________ 120 Table 63: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Hazardous Materials Responses - Moderate Risk __________ 120 Table 64: Critical Tasks for Hazardous Materials Responses - High Risk_____________________________________ 121 Table 65: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Hazardous Materials Responses - High Risk_______________ 121 Rescue Services_________________________________________________________________________ 121 Figure 53: Heat Map for Rescue Related Incidents _____________________________________________________ 123 Community Risks _______________________________________________________________________ 124 Figure 54: Probability and Consequence Special and Technical Hazards Risk Matrix __________________________ 124 Table 66: Critical Tasks for Technical Rescue Responses - Low Risk ________________________________________ 125 Table 67: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Technical Rescue Responses - Low Risk __________________ 125 Table 68: Critical Tasks for Technical Rescue Responses - Moderate Risk ___________________________________ 125 Table 69: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Technical Rescue Responses - Moderate Risk _____________ 125 Table 70: Critical Tasks for Technical Rescue Responses - High Risk _______________________________________ 126 Table 71: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Technical Rescue Responses - High Risk__________________ 126 REVIEW OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ____________________________________________________________ 127 CASCADE OF EVENTS _________________________________________________________________________ 127 Detection _____________________________________________________________________________ 127 Call Processing or Dispatch Time ___________________________________________________________ 127 Turnout Time __________________________________________________________________________ 128 Travel Time ____________________________________________________________________________ 128 Total Response Time_____________________________________________________________________ 128 Figure 55: Cascade of Events _____________________________________________________________________ 128 RESPONSE TIME CONTINUUM ___________________________________________________________________ 129 Fire __________________________________________________________________________________ 129 Figure 56: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve _____________________________________________ 129 Figure 57: Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve _____________________________________________ 130 EMS__________________________________________________________________________________ 130 Figure 58: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with Shockable Rhythm ____________________________ 132 DISTRIBUTION FACTORS _______________________________________________________________________ 132 Comparison of Demand Zones _____________________________________________________________ 132 6-Minute Travel Time ____________________________________________________________________ 133 Table 72: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Travel Time ____________________________________ 133 Figure 59: Current Fire Station Bleed Maps for 6-Minute Travel Time______________________________________ 134 Comparison of Workloads by Demand Zone __________________________________________________ 134 Table 73: Overall Workload by Station, Jurisdiction, and Program – DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units____________ 135 10 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page vi © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Comparison of Workloads by Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) _______________________________________ 136 Figure 60: Unit Hour Utilization – DMR, ENC, SOL Combined_____________________________________________ 137 Description of First Arriving Unit Performance ________________________________________________ 137 Table 74: Description of First Arriving Unit Emergency Response Performance in Minutes _____________________ 138 Figure 61: Distribution of Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit – All Emergency Calls___________________________ 138 Figure 62: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit – All Emergency Calls ____________________________ 139 Figure 63: Distribution of Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit – Emergency EMS Related Calls __________________ 140 Figure 64: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit – Emergency EMS Related Calls ____________________ 141 Figure 65: Distribution of Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit – Emergency Fire Related Calls ___________________ 141 Figure 66: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit – Emergency Fire Related Calls_____________________ 142 First Arriving Unit Response Time by Agency__________________________________________________ 143 Table 75: 90th Percentile Response Times by Unit – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency _______________________________________________________________________________________ 143 CONCENTRATION FACTORS _____________________________________________________________________ 144 Concentration of Risks by Demand Zone _____________________________________________________ 144 Table 76: Station Demand Zone Risk Concentration Matrix ______________________________________________ 144 Table 77: Summary of Station Fire Demand Zone Risk Concentration Matrix _______________________________ 145 Figure 67: DMR Station 1 Risk Profile _______________________________________________________________ 146 Figure 68: ENC Station 1 Risk Profile________________________________________________________________ 147 Figure 69: ENC Station 2 Risk Profile________________________________________________________________ 147 Figure 70: ENC Station 3 Risk Profile________________________________________________________________ 148 Figure 71: ENC Station 4 Risk Profile________________________________________________________________ 148 Figure 72: ENC Station 5 Risk Profile________________________________________________________________ 149 Figure 73: ENC Station 6 Risk Profile________________________________________________________________ 149 Figure 77: SOL Station 1 Risk Profile________________________________________________________________ 150 CONCENTRATION OF RESOURCES _________________________________________________________________ 151 Effective Response Force Capabilities _______________________________________________________ 151 Table 78: Comparisons of Effective Response Force Configurations _______________________________________ 151 Figure 78: 6-Minute ERF _________________________________________________________________________ 152 Figure 79: 8-Minute ERF _________________________________________________________________________ 153 Figure 80: 10-Minute ERF ________________________________________________________________________ 154 Figure 81: 12-Minute ERF ________________________________________________________________________ 155 Figure 82: 14-Minute ERF ________________________________________________________________________ 156 RELIABILITY FACTORS _________________________________________________________________________ 157 Percentage of System Compliance__________________________________________________________ 157 Percentage of First Due Compliance ________________________________________________________ 157 RESPONSE TIME PERFORMANCE BY AVAILABLE VEHICLES _________________________________________________ 157 Table 79: Average and 90th Percentile Response Times in Minutes by Number of Available Vehicles_____________ 158 Figure 83: Average and 90th Percentile Response Times by Number of Available Vehicles______________________ 158 Overlapped or Simultaneous Call Analysis____________________________________________________ 158 Table 80: Overlapped Calls by Jurisdiction ___________________________________________________________ 159 Figure 84: Percentage of Overlapped Calls by Jurisdiction _______________________________________________ 160 Table 81: Overlapped EMS Calls by Jurisdiction _______________________________________________________ 161 Figure 85: Percentage of Overlapped EMS Calls by Jurisdiction ___________________________________________ 161 Table 82: Overlapped Fire Calls by Jurisdiction________________________________________________________ 162 Figure 86: Percentage of Overlapped Fire Calls by Jurisdiction ___________________________________________ 162 BASELINE PERFORMANCE TABLES______________________________________________________________ 163 Table 83: Number of Incidents Dispatched by Call Category, Jurisdiction, and Reporting Period1 ________________ 163 11 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page vii © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 84: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Reporting Period and Jurisdiction – DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units _______________________________________________________________________ 165 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENT ________________________________________________ 166 BENCHMARK: ______________________________________________________________________________ 166 BASELINE: ________________________________________________________________________________ 166 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES – BENCHMARKS__________________________________________________________ 166 Fire Suppression Services Program__________________________________________________________ 166 Emergency Medical Services Program_______________________________________________________ 167 Hazardous Materials Services Program______________________________________________________ 167 Rescue Services Program _________________________________________________________________ 167 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES – BASELINES ____________________________________________________________ 168 Fire Suppression Services Program__________________________________________________________ 168 Emergency Medical Services Program_______________________________________________________ 168 Hazardous Materials Services Program______________________________________________________ 169 Rescue Services Program _________________________________________________________________ 169 COMPLIANCE METHODOLOGY ________________________________________________________________ 170 COMPLIANCE TEAM / RESPONSIBILITY ______________________________________________________________ 170 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND COMPLIANCE STRATEGY ________________________________________________ 170 COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION REPORTING ____________________________________________________________ 171 CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY ______________________________________________________________ 171 Figure 87: Continuous Improvement and Compliance Model ____________________________________________ 171 OVERALL EVALUATION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS __________________________________ 172 OVERALL EVALUATION ________________________________________________________________________ 172 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ____________________________________________________ 172 Equal Service Levels Across Jurisdictional Boundaries of the JPA __________________________________ 172 Fire Suppression Services Program – Rural Baseline ____________________________________________ 174 Data _________________________________________________________________________________ 174 Reliability _____________________________________________________________________________ 175 Outcome Measures _____________________________________________________________________ 175 Validation of Agency Critical Task Analysis ___________________________________________________ 175 ATTACHMENTS –
Attachment A – Data Report
Attachment B – GIS Report
12 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 1 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cities of Del Mar (DMR), Encinitas (ENC), and Solana Beach (SOL) Fire Departments (DMR, ENC, SOL FD) contracted with Fitch & Associates, LLC, to provide a fire department Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover (SOC) document and a management/administrative assessment (stand alone document separate from the SOC). Between August 2019 and June 2020, Fitch & Associates worked cooperatively with fire department and labor representatives with the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach to assess the operational capabilities and administrative make up of the agency. The process included a review of agency response data, GIS mapping, facilities, and equipment, as well as interviews with key staff.

A fire department’s SOC document is defined by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) as the “adopted written policies and procedures that determine the distribution, concentration and reliability of fixed and mobile response forces for fire, emergency medical services, hazardous materials and other technical types of responses.” For the communities’ elected officials to have confidence that their fire department is meeting the needs of the community, a complete assessment of the risks must be honestly undertaken. Only after the application of a proven and consistent risk assessment model is made can a fire department develop an SOC performance contract. DMR, ENC, SOL FD has demonstrated a commitment to data-driven analysis of risk assessment and risk mitigation by commissioning this SOC.

Overall, the firm’s strategy is to provide community leaders and fire department administration with sufficient objective data from which to establish policy. Therefore, all alternatives and recommendations are grounded in the data analysis and best practices, insulating the process from potential biases.
13 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 2 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY SERVED
Introduction
DMR, ENC, SOL FD is a full-service fire and rescue department serving the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach. These services include fire protection, emergency response, medical aid, fire prevention, disaster preparedness, search and rescue, and community education. Lifeguard services for the City of Encinitas are also managed by the fire department. Lifeguard services for the cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach are not under fire department control and are managed as separate departments within those two cities.

All three cities are beach communities in the northwestern corner of San Diego County, California. They are adjacent to the cities of Carlsbad, San Diego, and the community of Rancho Santa Fe. Interstate 5 traverses the jurisdiction and serves as one of two major north/south routes through San Diego County.

DMR, ENC, SOL FD has 101 full-time employees and five divisions: Fire Operations and Support Services, Fire Administration, Loss Prevention and Planning (Fire Prevention), Disaster Preparedness, and Marine Safety Services (for Encinitas). The Department operates six fire stations in Encinitas, one fire station in Del Mar, and one fire station (two crews on duty) in Solana Beach. The executive management team is responsible for overseeing the combined jurisdiction of approximately 25 square miles, with nine companies from eight fire stations and protecting a population of approximately 80,000.

DMR, ENC, SOL FD coordinates with the San Dieguito Ambulance District, also known as County Service Area 17 (CSA 17), for ambulance services. CSA 17 provides advanced life support (ALS) ambulance transport services within the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach; City of San Diego communities of Del Mar Heights and Del Mar Terrace; and the unincorporated communities of Rancho Santa Fe, 4-S Ranch, and a portion of Elfin Forest. The District includes approximately 73 square miles. The ambulance service provider currently contracted to provide services for CSA 17 is American Medical Response (AMR).

Legal Basis1
The City of Encinitas was incorporated as a general law city in 1986 as a conglomerate of local communities dating back to the early 1800’s (Old Encinitas, New Encinitas, Leucadia, Cardiff by the Sea, and Olivenhain) that came together to form a new city. The City is governed by a 1 City of Encinitas – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY Ended June 30, 2019, City of Solana Beach and Del Mar provided by the Agency.
14 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 3 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
five-member Council, elected to staggered four-year terms. Council members were previously elected at-large, but in 2020 the City of Encinitas completed the transition to election by district. One member of the Council is elected at-large separately as the Mayor, with only twoyear terms. The Mayor and Council appoint a City Manager who serves as the Chief Administrative Officer. The City Manager supervises, directs, and coordinates the various departments throughout City Hall. The Manager prepares the budget for the Council’s consideration and makes reports and recommendations to the City Council. The Manager is an at-will position with authority to appoint support staff, including the Fire Chief.

The City of Del Mar was incorporated in 1959 as a charter city. It is governed by a five-member Council, elected to staggered four-year terms, with the Mayor being chosen from among the members each year.

The City of Solana Beach was incorporated in 1986 as a general law city. It is governed by a five-member Council, elected to staggered four-year terms and by districts. The Mayor will be elected at-large by the community beginning in 2022.

History of the Agency2
Encinitas
The Encinitas Fire Protection District (ENC) was established by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors in 1945 to meet the fire protection needs of the coastal, rural, and agricultural communities of Encinitas, Leucadia, and Cardiff-by-the-Sea. On October 1, 1986, the City of Encinitas incorporated, and ENC became a subsidiary district of the newly formed city. At the time of incorporation, the District served about 15 square miles within the City and one square mile outside the city limits.

To consolidate responsibility for emergency and fire protection services, a reorganization of ENC took place on January 1, 1988. The reorganization expanded the boundaries of the District to encompass the entire city limits along with additional territory in a defined sphere of influence. With reorganization, ENC expanded to cover an area of over 23 square miles and serve a population of approximately 57,000 residents. The expansion included the communities of New Encinitas and Olivenhain.

Since October 2009, the City of Encinitas has operated under a cooperative fire management services agreement and shares the cost and services of senior fire management personnel with 2 Ibid.
15 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 4 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
the cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach. Encinitas provides operational oversight for emergency services in Solana Beach and Del Mar including day-to-day management of fire department operations, training, support services, disaster preparedness, and fire prevention support.

Solana Beach
The Solana Local Fire Protection District submitted for its certificate of existence with the county in 1948. Elmo Taylor, Solana Beach’s first Fire Chief, supervised 12 volunteers. The first fire engine, a 1925 Seagrave, was housed in a fire station across from the original train station.

In 1955, land was purchased from the Santa Fe Irrigation District for $500 and construction began on a new fire station.

In 1960, a mutual aid agreement was formed between Solana Beach and the neighboring CSA17 fire districts. On February 1, 1964, Chief James Fox (who was at the time the Chief of the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District) assumed the duty as the Chief of both the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District and the Solana Beach Fire Protection District. Chief Fox retired on January 21, 1981. He served as the Rancho Santa Fe Chief, and later Solana Beach, for 24 years.

On October 2, 1969, plans were announced to establish the San Dieguito Ambulance District and bring two ambulances to Solana Beach. As of 1971, the service was staffed with six drivers/attendants, who would shortly thereafter be Nationally Registered as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). As of 1974, all Solana Beach Firefighters were trained as EMTs. At that time, the Solana Beach Local Fire District had seven full-time members supplemented by 12-15 volunteers. Solana Beach Firefighters moved to a 56-hour work week starting in 1984 with five-member staffing: one Captain, one Engineer, two Firefighters, and one student per shift.

In 1986, the Solana Beach Fire Department (SOL) was established in conjunction with the incorporation of Solana Beach as a city and, in 1990, a new fire station was built to house the fire department personnel and equipment. In October of 2009, SOL joined a cost-saving Cooperative Fire Management Services Agreement with the cities of Encinitas and Del Mar.

Through this agreement, Encinitas and Solana Beach senior fire staff provide oversight for the Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach Fire Departments. Duties include supervising fire suppression operations and emergency medical services (EMS); emergency management; fire prevention activities; purchasing of materials, supplies, and fire equipment; management of service contracts; and administrative functions.
16 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 5 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
SOL prides itself on its civic involvement and providing excellent medical, fire, and rescue emergency services to its 13,000 residents and guests. In addition to Del Mar and Encinitas, SOL has automatic aid agreements with the City of San Diego and the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District. SOL provides mutual aid to the Northern San Diego Zone, San Diego County and as needed throughout the State of California. In 2018, SOL was recognized as an Insurance Services Office (ISO) Class 1 Fire Department.

Del Mar
The history of the Del Mar Fire Department (DMR) began formally with the incorporation of the City in 1959. On August 4, 1960, James Kavanaugh was named Del Mar’s first Fire Chief, creating a support staff of 12 part-time firefighters, in addition to procuring the Del Mar Fire Station. Today, DMR provides emergency services to nearly 5,000 full-time residents as well as more than 3 million annual visitors to the fairgrounds and its beaches. The service area covers more than 2.5 square miles and includes more than 1,600 structures.

DMR includes nine full-time staff (three Captains, three Fire Engineers, and three Firefighters/Paramedics). The Department is equipped with one front-line fire engine, one reserve fire engine, and a County mass casualty truck and trailer. Headquarters are located on the southeast corner of the Del Mar Fairgrounds at 2200 Jimmy Durante Boulevard.

DMR is responsible for fire suppression, fire protection, and EMS, and responds to vehicle accidents, rescues, and hazardous materials incidents. In addition to serving the City of Del Mar, the Department provides mutual aid to Solana Beach, Encinitas, Rancho Santa Fe, and the City of San Diego, and throughout the State of California as requested.

The City of Del Mar operates under a Cooperative Fire Management Services Agreement and shares the cost and services of senior fire management personnel with the Cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach. These services provide operational oversight for emergency services, including day-to-day management of fire department operations, training, support services, disaster preparedness, and fire prevention support.

Financial Basis3
Del Mar Overview
The City of Del Mar develops and adopts an operating and capital budget on a two-year budget cycle. Amounts are appropriated for the two years, with the amounts for the second 3 Ibid.
17 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 6 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
year subject to revisions in June, prior to the beginning of the second year. Any changes throughout the year to the operating or capital budgets must be approved by the City Council. The City also publishes a 10-year capital improvement program which is updated as part of the two-year budget cycle.

Del Mar enjoys a strong revenue tax base. Property tax, transient occupancy tax, and sales tax revenue represent approximately 65% of the City’s total General Fund revenue. The current financial crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic has had an effect on transient occupancy tact and sales tax revenues. However, other revenues remain stable and have generated sufficient tax revenues to continue to support municipal services.

Debt in the form of direct borrowings total approximately $18 million, with scheduled payments of principal and interest of $1 million in the coming fiscal year which represents about 6% of the General Fund.

The City has a financial policy to set a General Fund Contingency between 10-20% of General Fund operating expenditures and since its inception, even during economic downturns, has not fallen below the 10% contingency including the most recent pandemic financial crisis.

During the adoption of the most recent budget, a financial plan to increase the contingency by 1% each year was established with the goal to reach a 25% General Fund Contingency.

Since the pandemic, the increase of contingency was placed on hold until the economy stabilizes.

Encinitas Overview
The City of Encinitas develops and adopts both an operating and capital budget on a two-year budget cycle. Amounts are appropriated for the first year only, with the amounts for the second year subject to revisions before appropriation. Any changes to the operating or capital budgets must be approved by the City Council. The City also publishes a six-year capital improvement program and financial plan which is updated as part of the two-year budget cycle.

Encinitas enjoys a strong and well diversified tax base. Over the years, the property values and personal income levels within the City have generated tax revenues sufficient to support the level of municipal services and facilities. Property tax and sales tax revenue represent approximately 77% of the City’s total General Fund revenue and have remained strong even during difficult economic times. Other revenues remain fairly stable except for revenues from the State of California, which are always vulnerable to state actions. In 2017, the City of Encinitas was evaluated and rated “AAA” by Standard & Poor’s (S&P) Rating Services. 18 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 7 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Debt in the form of General Fund bonds totals approximately $46 million, with scheduled payments of principal and interest of $4 million in fiscal year (FY) 2018-19. This amount represents about 5.8% of the General Fund and well below the City’s debt service policy limit of 15%.

The City has a financial policy to set aside 20% of General Fund operating expenditures for contingencies. The City has never had occasion to draw on this reserve, since its inception in the early 1990s.

Solana Beach Overview
The City of Solana Beach adopts its operating and capital budget on a two-year cycle. The twoyear budget is subject to mid-year updates and amendments adopted by the City Council during each of the two fiscal years. Actual expenditures may not exceed budgeted appropriations at the fund level without a budget amendment adopted by resolution of the City Council.

As a suburban community, Solana Beach’s economic base is linked primarily to the economy of the greater San Diego region. The City benefits from a stable tax base consisting largely of property tax and sales tax. These taxes provide nearly 60% of total budgeted General Fund revenues. The City also receives a significant amount of franchise fees, transient occupancy tax, and motor vehicle in-lieu revenues.

The City of Solana Beach’s conservative fiscal policies have helped the City build and maintain a healthy reserve and management continues to hold costs in line with available resources. As of FY 2019-2020, the City had a General Fund reserve balance of $15.5 million, equating to over 75% of annual General Fund expenditures. The City was given an “AA+” rating for its most recent debt issuance in 2017. Currently, Solana Beach has long-term debt obligations totaling $23 million and annual debt service of $2 million.

Area Description
Geography
The Cities of Del Mar, Encinitas and Solana Beach are a series of adjacent beach cities in the northwestern corner of San Diego County, California. Residents and visitors enjoy more than 10 miles of beach with ample access for water sports such as fishing and surfing. North and south are lagoon/wetland areas governed by the State of California as protected environmental areas. To the east of Encinitas, elevation climbs steeply, and the street 19 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 8 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
segments must follow deep arroyos and other contours which restrict access and areas available for development. Del Mar and Solana Beach also have areas with street segments that climb steeply, some narrow with sharp turns that can be a challenge for emergency vehicles, such as Crest Canyon in Del Mar.

Figure 1: San Diego County, CA
20 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 9 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 2: Map of Jurisdiction and Adjacent Fire Service Agencies Topography
All three beach communities have similar topography. The beach areas back up to coastal cliffs that create additional hazards for the area, including spontaneous collapse from time to time as erosion occurs.4 Access to some of the cliff areas is limited for motorized equipment.

From the beach/cliff areas east, it becomes more “flat-topped coastal area” with steep bluffs and rolling hills. The area has a wide variety of annual grasses and brush. Wildland fire is a constant threat to all three cities.
4 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-03/encinitas-beach-cliff-bluff-collapse-california-coast-erosion 21 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 10 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Climate5
All three communities enjoy a very mild, Mediterranean climate. Average daily high temperature is 72°F. Temperatures below 40°F and above 85°F are rare. Average rainfall is about 10 inches per year. The wet season lasts during the winter and spring when temperatures are usually cool. Average daytime temperatures hit 65°F in winter and spring when rain and marine layer (fog) are common (May Gray/June Gloom). Nighttime lows range from 45-55°F. The dry season lasts from summer through fall, with average daytime temperatures ranging from 75-85°F, and nighttime lows being from the upper 50s-60s°F.

Ocean water temperatures average 60°F in winter, 64°F in spring, 70°F in summer, and 66°F in fall. In winter, strong Pacific storms can bring heavy rain and higher waves/surf.

Population and Demographic Features6
Census projections for 2021, suggest that all three agencies serve a community of over 81,408 residents (Del Mar, Encinitas, Solana Beach combined). The area has a high-density rate with over 2,900 people per square mile (a few areas with 15,000 per square mile). The 2015-2019 census projects the racial make-up of combined area as 86.32% White, 4.24% Asian, 0.85% African American, 0.39% Native American, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 3.6% Other, and 4.02% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race made up 14.0%.

The median age is 48.5 year. considering gender, 51.7% of the population is female and 48.33% are male. Census estimates between 2015-2019 suggest that 69.1% of the population is college educated. The per capita income projected for 2021 is $87,082, with a median household income of $125.998, and a 3.6% unemployment rate. Utilizing the total population, the 2021 estimate is that 1.2% of the population would be unemployed. Finally, the 2015-2019 census estimates suggest that 6.29% of the population is below poverty level.

There were 32,385 occupied housing units projected for 2021. Of the occupied units, 20,116 (62.1%) were owner-occupied and 12,358 (38.2%) were rented. The total vacant housing units is 4,588 or 14.2%.
5 US Census Data apportioned to municipal boundaries.
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encinitas,_California, accessed September 18, 2020. 22 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 11 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 3: Population Density by Census Block – 2019
23 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 12 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
According to US census data, the population change is predicted at 0% to > 1.25% for the majority of census block areas representing very stable population change across the entire jurisdiction.

Figure 4: Annual Population Change 2019-2024
24 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 13 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Generally, older populations and very young populations are considered to be most vulnerable to the frequency and incidents of fire. In addition, older populations historically utilize EMS services with greater frequency. It is important to understand, what field crews often recognize intuitively, that the distribution of population risks is not uniform across the jurisdiction. According to these data, the majority of the jurisdiction is less than 53 years of age.

Figure 5: Median Age – 2019
25 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 14 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Finally, population alone is not the sole variable that influences demand for services, as socioeconomic and demographic factors have greater influence over demand. Median household income was evaluated to determine the degree to which the community had underprivileged populations. According to the US Census Bureau, the 2019 national median household income is reported at $68,703.

Figure 6: Median Household Income – 2019
Disaster Potentials
The area is vulnerable to natural hazards of flooding, severe weather conditions, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and wildfire incidents.
26 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 15 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
The jurisdiction is also vulnerable to technological (human-caused) hazards associated with hazardous materials spills, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) terrorism, civil disturbances, rail, and transportation accidents (air, rail, Interstate). Both high pressure natural gas transmission lines and distribution lines are common in the area, as well as electrical distribution infrastructure.
27 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 16 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

SERVICES PROVIDED
Service Delivery Programs
Fire Suppression
DMR, ENC, and SOL provide high-quality fire suppression services to the three cities (24.8 square miles), while assisting surrounding agencies with mutual or automatic aid as requested.

Fire suppression services are currently provided from eight fixed-facility fire stations that are strategically distributed throughout the jurisdiction and staffed 24/7. All members are minimally trained as Firefighters and EMTs, with the majority of Firefighters licensed as Paramedics. The Agency ensures at least one Paramedic is staffed on each unit at all times.

Minimum staffing per day is currently 27 personnel including the on-duty Battalion Chief. In July 2020, the jurisdiction discontinued a peak-hour fast response pilot program in the northwestern quadrant of Encinitas due to low call volume in relation to the cost of operation.

The following is a description of resource and staffing configurations currently deployed by DMR, ENC, SOL FD.
• Six fire engine companies (ENC 1, 2, 3, 4, SOL 1, DMR 1) • Two truck companies (ENC 5 and SOL 1)
• One Patrol Unit (ENC 6)
• One Battalion Chief command unit
• Three full-time ALS ambulances, staffed by AMR employees, are co-located by agreement at ENC 2, 5, and SOL 1. At times, the DMR 1 station may have a float ambulance with variable times. The ENC 2 ambulance is staffed from 1000 – 2200.

Encinitas also cross-staffs two brush vehicles that are strategically located and utilized as needed or requested depending on the nature of the incident. In 2019, fire suppression incidents accounted for 18% of the total incidents responded to by DMR, ENC, SOL FD.

Rescue
DMR, ENC, SOL FD provides initial response for technical rescue services within the jurisdiction. DMR, ENC, SOL FD will respond to technical rescue incidents and is equipped to extricate and treat injured patients and victims. DMR, ENC, SOL FD has the minimal equipment and basic operational abilities to begin mitigation strategies for most technical rescue incidents occurring in the jurisdiction. DMR, ENC, SOL FD is part of a county-wide mutual aid system that provides additional assistance that can be utilized when moderate- or 28 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 17 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
high-risk incidents occur and require more advanced technician-level personnel and equipment from other providers in the area. DMR, ENC, SOL FD requires all line personnel to maintain training and certification at the Awareness level for Technical Rescue, but maintains a cadre of personnel trained in Operational level in such areas as high-angle, low-angle, rescue systems, swift water, confined space, and trench rescue. In 2019, rescue incidents accounted for 1.5% of the total incidents responded to by DMR, ENC, SOL FD.

Emergency Medical Services
All agencies provide both Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) EMS response. The Department coordinates with the San Dieguito Ambulance District, also known as CSA 17, for ambulance services. The ambulance service provider currently contracted to provide services for local residents is AMR. DMR, ENC, SOL FD allows three AMR units to colocate within its fire stations under a contract (two 24-hour units and one 12-hour unit). A fourth 12-hour ALS unit covers the jurisdiction as needed. All personnel are certified EMTs, with the majority of Firefighters certified at the Paramedic level. State-certified Paramedics provided ALS-level interventions including, but not limited to, 12-lead electrocardiograms, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), defibrillation and synchronized cardioversion, advanced airway management, and providing intravenous (IV) access-medication administration. In 2019, EMS incidents accounted for 79% of the total incidents responded to by DMR, ENC, SOL FD.

Marine Safety
DMR, ENC, SOL FD provides marine safety services (lifeguards) for 3.5 miles of coastline in Encinitas which includes swift water, flood, surf, open water, under-water, and cliff rescue, in addition to medical aid and other safety services specific to the coastline. The Marine Safety Division also provides staffing for the Agency’s Swift Water Rescue Team. The Division is staffed with one Marine Safety Captain, one Lieutenant, four Sergeants, 57 seasonal Lifeguards, and ten Lifeguard Aides. The influx of tourist and visitors to the beach creates additional demand for these services, especially during the summer months when beach use is the highest. Marine safety/water rescues are counted either as rescues or medical as listed above. The Cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach provide their own city-coordinated lifeguard programs separate from the fire department.

Hazardous Materials
Although the frequency of hazardous materials incidents is relatively low within the jurisdiction, the potential for incidents is significant. Hazardous materials are transported via rail in all three cities. The jurisdiction has several major roadways by which hazardous 29 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 18 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
materials are transported, including on Interstate 5, with one of the highest vehicle counts in the state. DMR, ENC, SOL FD provides initial response for hazardous materials incidents within the jurisdiction. For moderate- or high-risk incidents that exceed the capability of DMR, ENC, SOL FD, the Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team (HIRT) from the San Diego County OES Operational Area may be summoned, which consists of the City of San Diego Fire Department Hazmat Team and County of San Diego Environmental Health Department. DMR, ENC, SOL FD requires all line personnel to be trained at a minimum to the Operations level of hazardous materials certification. In 2019, hazardous materials accounted for 1.2% of the total incidents responded to by DMR, ENC, SOL FD. The majority of these incidents were responses to carbon monoxide or natural gas leaks and handled with the first arriving engine company without the need for the hazardous materials team and unit to respond.

Current Deployment Strategy
Fire Stations and Apparatus
ENC Station 1: 415 2nd Street, Encinitas, CA 92024
Table 1: ENC Station 1 Resources
Apparatus Identifier and Capability Minimum Number of Personnel Assigned Per Shift
Engine 231 3
Engine 231R 0 (reserve, unstaffed)
Total 3
30 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 19 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
ENC Station 2: 618 Birmingham Drive, Cardiff, CA 92007
Table 2: ENC Station 2 Resources
Apparatus Identifier and Capability Minimum Number of Personnel Assigned Per Shift
Engine 232 3
Medic 232 (12-hour AMR/1000-2200) 2
Total 3/5
ENC Station 3: 801 Orpheus Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024
Table 3: ENC Station 3 Resources
Apparatus Identifier and Capability Minimum Number of Personnel Assigned Per Shift
Engine 233 3
Battalion 233 1
Engine 233R 0 (reserve, unstaffed)
Battalion 233R 0 (reserve, unstaffed)
Total 4
31 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 20 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
ENC Station 4: 2011 Village Park Way, Encinitas, CA 92024 Table 4: ENC Station 4 Resources
Apparatus Identifier and Capability Minimum Number of Personnel Assigned Per Shift
Engine 234 3
Brush 234 0 (cross-staffed)
Total 3
ENC Station 5: 540 Balour Drive, Encinitas, CA 92024
Table 5: ENC Station 5 Resources
Apparatus Identifier and Capability Minimum Number of Personnel Assigned Per Shift
Truck 235 3
Brush 235 0 (cross-staffed with truck crew)
Medic 235 ( 24 hour- AMR) 2
Total 3/5
32 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 21 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
ENC Station 6: 770 Rancho Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, CA 92024 Table 6: ENC Station 6 Resources
Apparatus Identifier and Capability Minimum Number of Personnel Assigned Per Shift
Patrol 236 2
Total 2
SOL Station 1: 500 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Solana Beach, CA 92075 Table 7: SOL Station 1 Resources
Apparatus Identifier and Capability Minimum Number of Personnel Assigned Per Shift
Engine 237 3
Truck 237 3
Engine 237R 0 (reserve, unstaffed)
Medic 237 (24-hour AMR) 2
Supervisor 237 (24-hour AMR) 1
Total 6/9
33 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 22 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
DMR Station 1: 2200 Jimmy Durante Boulevard. Del Mar, CA 92014 Table 8: DMR Station 1 Resources
Apparatus Identifier and Capability Minimum Number of Personnel Assigned Per Shift
Engine 238 3
Engine 238R 0 (reserve, unstaffed)
Total 3
Current Staffing Strategy
Organizational Structure
DMR, ENC, SOL FD currently responds to emergency and non-emergency incidents out of eight fire stations, with its administrative building located at 505 S. Vulcan Ave., Encinitas, CA 92024. The organizational chart on the next page illustrates the general organizational structure for DMR, ENC, SOL FD.
34 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 23 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 7: Encinitas Fire & Marine Services Department Organizational Chart Administration, Emergency Services, and Support Staff
The DMR, ENC, SOL FD administrative structure is composed of the Fire Chief, a Deputy Chief, a Senior Management Analyst, Management Analyst, Administrative Support Coordinator, and an Administrative Assistant. The Fire Chief is responsible for the overall fiscal and operational management of the organization. While the Fire Chief is an official employee of Encinitas, the Fire Chief reports directly to the City Managers of ENC, DMR, and SOL. In 2009, these three Cities entered into a Cooperative Fire Management Services Agreement. Through this agreement, Encinitas and Solana Beach senior fire staff provide operational oversight to all three Cities. This division provides management, direction, and administrative support for all three Departments, conducts long-range planning, prepares the budget, provides fiscal &ŝƌĞŚŝĞĨ
ĞƉƵƚLJ
ŚŝĞĨ
ĂƩĂůŝŽŶ
ŚŝĞĨ

ĚŵŝŶ͘
^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
ŽŽƌĚ͘
DŐŵƚ͘
ŶĂůLJƐƚ
^ƌ͘DŐŵƚ͘
ŶĂůLJƐƚ
ĂƩĂůŝŽŶ
ŚŝĞĨ

ĂƩĂůŝŽŶ
ŚŝĞĨ

&ŝƌĞ
DĂƌƐŚĂů
ĞƉƵƚLJ
&ŝƌĞ
DĂƌƐŚĂů
^ƌ͘ĞƉƵƚLJ
&ŝƌĞ
DĂƌƐŚĂů
ĞƉƵƚLJ
&ŝƌĞ
DĂƌƐŚĂů

E
^ƚĂƟŽŶϲ

E
^ƚĂƟŽŶϱ
^K>
^ƚĂƟŽŶϭ
DZ
^ƚĂƟŽŶϭ

E
^ƚĂƟŽŶϰ

E
^ƚĂƟŽŶϯ

E
^ƚĂƟŽŶϮ

E
^ƚĂƟŽŶϭ
^ŚĂƌĞĚůů
EŽƚ^ŚĂƌĞĚ

ŶĐŝŶŝƚĂƐ ^ŽůĂŶĂĞĂĐŚ ĞůDĂƌ ^Ͷϭϳ >
'
E
ĚŵŝŶ͘
ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚ
ĚŵŝŶ͘
ĂƩĂůŝŽŶ
ŚŝĞĨ

D^
ŽŽƌĚ͘
)එකඍ'ඍ඘ඉකගඕඍඖග2කඏඉඖඑජඉගඑ඗ඖඉඔ&ඐඉකග
WƌŽŐƌĂŵ
ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚ
&ŝƌĞ
/ŶƐƉĞĐƚŽƌ
^ƌ͘ĞƉƵƚLJ
&ŝƌĞ
DĂƌƐŚĂů
35 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 24 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
analysis of Departments’ activities, and pursues grants to purchase needed equipment and fund educational programs. Administration is also responsible for emergency management/disaster preparedness programs for the City of Encinitas and provides support and assistance to the Cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach.

Three Battalion Chiefs provide oversight and day-to-day management to the Emergency Services/Operations Division. DMR, ENC, SOL FD currently has 81-line personnel assigned across three shifts working a 56-hour work week. The shift schedule consists of four alternating days of on-duty, with either a four- or six-day set of days off. (Example: X = Working, O = Off ---- X O X O X O X O O O O X O X O X O X O O O O O O) . Each shift currently has a minimum of 27 personnel on duty.

The EMS program is assisted by an EMS Coordinator who is provided to the Agency under contract by the San Dieguito Ambulance District (CSA-17), serviced by AMR.

The Training Division is coordinated by the Administrative Battalion Chief and supported by the shift Battalion Chiefs. The Division provides department-wide training at all levels and is responsible for the development and delivery of the Annual Training Plan.

The Fire Chief is supported by the Fire Marshal, two Senior Deputy Fire Marshals (one currently unfilled), two Deputy Fire Marshals, a Fire Inspector (for Solana Beach only), and a Program Assistant. The Fire Prevention Division is responsible for plan reviews, fire safety inspections, fire investigations, and public education. 36 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 25 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

COMMUNITY RESPONSE HISTORY
Methodology
During the 2019 reporting period (i.e., January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019; hereinafter referred to as 2019), community demand included 761 calls from DMR’s jurisdiction (Figure 8; Table 9), 5,918 calls from ENC’s jurisdiction (Figure 9; Table 9), and 1,435 calls from SOL’s jurisdiction (Figure 10; Table 9), for a combined community demand from all three jurisdictions of 8,114 calls (Figure 11; Table 10). Total number of calls for mutual/auto-aid out during 2019 was 1,069 (Figure 12; Table 10; Table 11 and Table 12 by individual jurisdiction).

Percentage of calls by program varied across jurisdiction. DMR community demand included

66.9% EMS related calls and 27.5% fire related calls; ENC community demand included 80.8% EMS related calls and 15.7% fire related calls; and SOL community demand included 77.0% EMS related calls and 20.3% fire related calls. Combined, community demand across all three jurisdictions included 78.8% EMS related calls and 17.6% fire related calls. Community demand for mutual/auto-aid out included 63.7% EMS related calls and 26.9% fire related calls.

Classifications of incident types from the data file into program and call category are presented in the Appendix of the Data Report.
37 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 26 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 8: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – DMR Jurisdiction Figure 9: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – ENC Jurisdiction

66.9%

27.5%

1.2% 3.0%

1.4%
EMS
Fire
Hazmat
Rescue
Unknown

80.8%

15.7%

1.4%

1.3%

0.9%
EMS
Fire
Hazmat
Rescue
Unknown
Total Number of Incidents: 761
Total Number of Incidents: 5,918
38 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 27 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 10: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – SOL Jurisdiction

77.0%

20.3%

0.6%

1.4%

0.8%
EMS
Fire
Hazmat
Rescue
Unknown
Total Number of Incidents: 1,435
39 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 28 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 11: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – DMR, ENC, and SOL Combined Jurisdictions Figure 12: Percentage of Total Incidents by Program – Mutual/Auto-Aid Out

78.8%

17.6%

1.2%

1.5% 0.9%
EMS
Fire
Hazmat
Rescue
Unknown

63.7%

26.9%

2.5% 0.2%

5.3%

1.3%
EMS
Fire
Hazmat
Mutual Aid
Rescue
Unknown
Total Number of Incidents: 8,114
Total Number of Incidents: 1,069
40 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 29 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 9: Number of Incidents by Call Category and Jurisdiction – DMR, ENC, SOL Call Category

DMR ENC SOL
Number
of Calls
Average
Calls per Day
Call
Percentage
Number
of Calls
Average Calls
per Day
Call
Percentage
Number
of Calls
Average
Calls per Day
Call
Percentage
Cardiac and Stroke 36 0.1 4.7 389 1.1 6.6 92 0.3 6.4
Difficulty Breathing 24 0.1 3.2 338 0.9 5.7 57 0.2 4.0
Fall and Injury 149 0.4 19.6 1075 2.9 18.2 218 0.6 15.2 Illness and Other 199 0.5 26.1 1793 4.9 30.3 447 1.2 31.1 MVA 34 0.1 4.5 441 1.2 7.5 114 0.3 7.9
Overdose and Psychiatric 6 < 0.1 0.8 137 0.4 2.3 33 0.1 2.3 Possible Death 0 0.0 0.0 16 < 0.1 0.3 3 < 0.1 0.2
Public Service 9 < 0.1 1.2 171 0.5 2.9 46 0.1 3.2
Seizure and Unconsciousness 52 0.1 6.8 419 1.1 7.1 95 0.3 6.6 EMS Total 509 1.4 66.9 4,779 13.1 80.8 1,105 3.0 77.0
Aircraft Problem 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Fire Alarm 134 0.4 17.6 517 1.4 8.7 166 0.5 11.6
Fire Other 58 0.2 7.6 254 0.7 4.3 77 0.2 5.4
Outside Fire 1 < 0.1 0.1 16 < 0.1 0.3 3 < 0.1 0.2
Public Service 7 < 0.1 0.9 52 0.1 0.9 15 < 0.1 1.0
Strike Team 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Structure Fire 7 < 0.1 0.9 55 0.2 0.9 21 0.1 1.5
Vehicle Fire 2 < 0.1 0.3 33 0.1 0.6 9 < 0.1 0.6
Fire Total 209 0.6 27.5 927 2.5 15.7 291 0.8 20.3
Hazmat 9 < 0.1 1.2 82 0.2 1.4 8 < 0.1 0.6
Hazmat Total 9 < 0.1 1.2 82 0.2 1.4 8 < 0.1 0.6
Mutual Aid 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Mutual Aid Total 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Rescue 23 0.1 3.0 78 0.2 1.3 20 0.1 1.4
Rescue Total 23 0.1 3.0 78 0.2 1.3 20 0.1 1.4
Unknown 11 < 0.1 1.4 52 0.1 0.9 11 < 0.1 0.8
Unknown Total 11 < 0.1 1.4 52 0.1 0.9 11 < 0.1 0.8
Total 761 2.1 100.0 5,918 16.2 100.0 1,435 3.9 100.0
1 Classifications of incident types from the data file into call category are presented in the Appendix of the Data Report. 41 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 30 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 10: Number of Incidents by Call Category and Jurisdiction – DMR, ENC, and SOL Combined Jurisdictions and Mutual/Auto-Aid Out
Call Category
DMR, ENC, SOL Mutual/Auto-Aid Out
Number
of Calls
Average
Calls per Day
Call
Percentage
Number
of Calls
Average Calls
per Day
Call
Percentage
Cardiac and Stroke 517 1.4 6.4 50 0.1 4.7
Difficulty Breathing 419 1.1 5.2 27 0.1 2.5
Fall and Injury 1442 4.0 17.8 105 0.3 9.8
Illness and Other 2439 6.7 30.1 282 0.8 26.4
MVA 589 1.6 7.3 149 0.4 13.9
Overdose and Psychiatric 176 0.5 2.2 11 < 0.1 1.0
Possible Death 19 0.1 0.2 2 < 0.1 0.2
Public Service 226 0.6 2.8 7 < 0.1 0.7
Seizure and Unconsciousness 566 1.6 7.0 48 0.1 4.5
EMS Total 6,393 17.5 78.8 681 1.9 63.7
Aircraft Problem 0 0.0 0.0 1 < 0.1 0.1
Fire Alarm 817 2.2 10.1 124 0.3 11.6
Fire Other 389 1.1 4.8 26 0.1 2.4
Outside Fire 20 0.1 0.2 9 < 0.1 0.8
Public Service 74 0.2 0.9 4 < 0.1 0.4
Strike Team 0 0.0 0.0 8 < 0.1 0.7
Structure Fire 83 0.2 1.0 100 0.3 9.4
Vehicle Fire 44 0.1 0.5 16 < 0.1 1.5
Fire Total 1,427 3.9 17.6 288 0.8 26.9
Hazmat 99 0.3 1.2 27 0.1 2.5
Hazmat Total 99 0.3 1.2 27 0.1 2.5
Mutual Aid 0 0.0 0.0 2 < 0.1 0.2
Mutual Aid Total 0 0.0 0.0 2 < 0.1 0.2
Rescue 121 0.3 1.5 57 0.2 5.3
Rescue Total 121 0.3 1.5 57 0.2 5.3
Unknown 74 0.2 0.9 14 < 0.1 1.3
Unknown Total 74 0.2 0.9 14 < 0.1 1.3
Total 8,114 22.2 100.0 1,069 2.9 100.0
1 Classifications of incident types from the data file into call category are presented in the Appendix of the Data Report. 42 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 31 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Combined, all units assigned to the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies that were considered by the Encinitas leadership team and the North County Dispatch team to represent valid units made 9,842 responses, and were busy on calls for a total of 3,450.7 hours within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions during 2019. Overall, average busy minutes per response was 21.0 minutes, and average number of responses per call was 1.2. The table below also presents metrics separately for DMR, ENC, and SOL jurisdictions and for mutual/auto-aid out by program area.

Note that the values for “Number of Calls” presented in table below are slightly less than the number of calls reflected previously for overall community demand for each jurisdiction. This is due to focusing only on responses made by (1) valid units assigned to (2) the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies (see Appendix of the Data Report for classification and exclusion activities).

Throughout this report, community demand represents all requests for service made by the community both (1) within the DMR, ENC, and SOL jurisdictions, regardless of the agency to which the responding unit is assigned, and (2) outside of the DMR, ENC, and SOL jurisdictions (i.e., mutual/auto-aid out) when responses were made by units assigned to the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies. When the focus of investigation throughout this report shifts to response volume and unit workload or performance, the number of unique calls associated with these metrics will continue to change based on the element of inquiry (e.g., units assigned to the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies; units assigned to outside agencies; fire program area; EMS program area; performance times by first arriving primary front-line units). 43 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 32 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 11: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction and Program – DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units Jurisdiction Program Number of
Calls1
Number of
Responses2
Average
Responses
per Call
Total Busy
Hours
Responses
with Time
Data3
Average Busy
Minutes per
Response
Average
Calls per
Day
Average
Responses
per Day
DMR
EMS 487 520 1.1 199.3 520 23.0 1.3 1.4
Fire 198 238 1.2 129.5 238 32.7 0.5 0.7
Hazmat 7 11 1.6 6.6 11 35.9 0.0 0.0
Rescue 23 49 2.1 13.1 49 16.0 0.1 0.1
Unknown 10 10 1.0 2.1 10 12.4 0.0 0.0
Total 725 828 1.1 350.6 828 25.4 2.0 2.3
ENC
EMS 4,703 5,425 1.2 1,622.1 5,425 17.9 12.9 14.9
Fire 904 1,359 1.5 516.1 1,359 22.8 2.5 3.7
Hazmat 82 166 2.0 80.8 166 29.2 0.2 0.5
Rescue 78 217 2.8 128.7 217 35.6 0.2 0.6
Unknown 51 57 1.1 14.1 57 14.8 0.1 0.2
Total 5,818 7,224 1.2 2,361.8 7,224 19.6 15.9 19.8
SOL
EMS 1,094 1,265 1.2 420.8 1,265 20.0 3.0 3.5
Fire 285 447 1.6 280.6 446 37.7 0.8 1.2
Hazmat 8 12 1.5 6.3 12 31.4 0.0 0.0
Rescue 19 54 2.8 27.3 54 30.3 0.1 0.1
Unknown 11 12 1.1 3.4 12 16.9 0.0 0.0
Total 1,417 1,790 1.3 738.3 1,789 24.8 3.9 4.9

DMR, ENC, SOL
EMS 6,284 7,210 1.1 2,242.2 7,210 18.7 17.2 19.8
Fire 1,387 2,044 1.5 926.3 2,043 27.2 3.8 5.6
Hazmat 97 189 1.9 93.7 189 29.7 0.3 0.5
Rescue 120 320 2.7 169.0 320 31.7 0.3 0.9
Unknown 72 79 1.1 19.5 79 14.8 0.2 0.2
Total 7,960 9,842 1.2 3,450.7 9,841 21.0 21.8 27.0
44 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 33 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Jurisdiction Program Number of
Calls1
Number of
Responses2
Average
Responses
per Call
Total Busy
Hours
Responses
with Time
Data3
Average Busy
Minutes per
Response
Average
Calls per
Day
Average
Responses
per Day
Mutual/AutoAid Out
EMS 681 750 1.1 227.3 750 18.2 1.9 2.1
Fire 288 444 1.5 232.6 439 31.8 0.8 1.2
Hazmat 27 38 1.4 11.9 38 18.7 0.1 0.1
Mutual Aid 2 3 1.5 31.8 3 635.1 0.0 0.0
Rescue 57 86 1.5 24.8 86 17.3 0.2 0.2
Unknown 14 15 1.1 3.0 15 11.8 0.0 0.0
Total 1,069 1,336 1.2 531.2 1,331 23.9 2.9 3.7
All
EMS 6,965 7,960 1.1 2,469.5 7,960 18.6 19.1 21.8
Fire 1,675 2,488 1.5 1,158.8 2,482 28.0 4.6 6.8
Hazmat 124 227 1.8 105.6 227 27.9 0.3 0.6
Mutual Aid 2 3 1.5 31.8 3 635.1 0.0 0.0
Rescue 177 406 2.3 193.8 406 28.6 0.5 1.1
Unknown 86 94 1.1 22.5 94 14.3 0.2 0.3
Total 9,029 11,178 1.2 3,981.9 11,172 21.4 24.7 30.6
1 “Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls following any exclusion activity to align with valid responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies (see Appendix of the Data Report). 2
“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies, regardless of calculated busy time.
3 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded.

Combined, all medic units assigned to AMR that were considered by the Encinitas leadership team and the North County Dispatch team to represent valid units (see Appendix of the Data Report) made 6,394 responses, and were busy on calls for a total of 4,326.3 hours within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions during 2019 (Table 12). Overall, average busy minutes per response was 40.6 minutes, and average number of responses per call was 1.1. Table 12 also presents metrics separately for DMR, ENC, and SOL jurisdictions.
45 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 34 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Combined, units assigned to all other outside agencies that were considered by the Encinitas leadership team and the North County Dispatch team to represent valid units (see Appendix of the Data Report) made 816 responses, and were busy on calls for a total of 517.1 hours within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions during 2019 (Table 12). Overall, average busy minutes per response was 38.0 minutes, and average number of responses per call was 1.3.

Table 12: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Jurisdiction – AMR and Outside Agency Units Agency Jurisdiction Number of
Calls1
Number of
Responses2
Average
Responses
per Call
Total Busy
Hours
Responses
with Time
Data3
Average Busy
Minutes per
Response
Average
Calls per
Day
Average
Responses
per Day
AMR4
DMR 490 524 1.1 419.3 524 48.0 1.3 1.4
ENC 4,529 4,779 1.1 3,099.3 4,779 38.9 12.4 13.1
SOL 1,019 1,091 1.1 807.8 1,091 44.4 2.8 3.0
DMR, ENC, SOL 6,038 6,394 1.1 4,326.3 6,394 40.6 16.5 17.5 All Other
Outside
Agencies
DMR 79 102 1.3 43.1 102 25.3 0.2 0.3
ENC 448 544 1.2 314.0 544 34.6 1.2 1.5
SOL 109 170 1.6 160.1 170 56.5 0.3 0.5
DMR, ENC, SOL 636 816 1.3 517.1 816 38.0 1.7 2.2
1 “Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls following any exclusion activity to align with valid responses made by units assigned to outside agencies (see Appendix of the Data Report). 2
“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to outside agencies, regardless of calculated busy time.
3 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to outside agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. 4
Includes medic units M232, M235, M237, and M494 that were originally classified as belonging to DMR or ENC agencies in version I of this report. 46 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 35 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in community demands. These analyses are based on the 8,114 requests for service received by the community in the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions, and examine the frequency of incidents by month, day of week, and hour of day. In the following analyses, calls that were not classified as “EMS” or “Fire” were grouped into an “Other” category for presentation purposes.

Overall, average requests per month ranged from a low of 20.5 calls per day in February to a high of 24.2 calls per day in June. The three months with the most requests for service in descending order were: June (24.2 per day), August (23.8 per day), and July (23.0 per day).

The three months with the fewest requests for service in ascending order were: February (20.5 per day), May (20.5 per day), and April (21.4 per day).

Table 13: Overall: Total Calls and Average Call per Day by Month Month Number of
Calls
Average
Calls per
Day
Call
Percentage
January 683 22.0 8.4
February 574 20.5 7.1
March 681 22.0 8.4
April 641 21.4 7.9
May 636 20.5 7.8
June 726 24.2 8.9
July 714 23.0 8.8
August 739 23.8 9.1
September 686 22.9 8.5
October 665 21.5 8.2
November 670 22.3 8.3
December 699 22.5 8.6
Total 8,114 22.2 100.0
47 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 36 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 13: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Month

9.4 10.7

12.5 11.1

12.0 10.9

11.5 12.2

12.7 12.6

13.4 10.5
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average Number of Calls per Day
Month
EMS Fire Other
48 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 37 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Similar analyses were conducted for requests by day of week; 53 Tuesdays in 2019; 52 of all other days of the week. The lowest average number of calls per day occurred on Tuesday (20.7 per day), and the highest average number of calls per day occurred on Monday (23.7 per day).

Table 14: Overall: total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week Day of
Week
Number of
Calls
Average
Calls per
Day
Call
Percentage
Sunday 1,095 21.1 13.5
Monday 1,231 23.7 15.2
Tuesday1 1,096 20.7 13.5
Wednesday 1,136 21.8 14.0
Thursday 1,203 23.1 14.8
Friday 1,176 22.6 14.5
Saturday 1,177 22.6 14.5
Total 8,114 22.2 100.0
1 There were 53 Tuesdays in 2019, and 52 of all other days of the week in 2019.

Figure 14: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Day of Week

21.1 23.7

20.7 21.8

23.1 22.6 22.6
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Average Number of Calls per Day
Day of Week
EMS Fire Other
49 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 38 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Overall demands were also evaluated by hour of day. Variability exists in the time of day that requests for services were received. Peak demand occurred at 1100 (1.4 calls per day). The hours of the day with the lowest average number of calls per day (ranging from 0.4-0.5 per day) were between 0100 and 0600.

Table 15: Overall: Total Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day Hour of Day Number of
Calls
Average
Calls per
Day
Call
Percentage
0 206 0.6 2.5
1 176 0.5 2.2
2 163 0.4 2.0
3 142 0.4 1.8
4 140 0.4 1.7
5 165 0.5 2.0
6 192 0.5 2.4
7 290 0.8 3.6
8 372 1.0 4.6
9 448 1.2 5.5
10 493 1.4 6.1
11 504 1.4 6.2
12 503 1.4 6.2
13 499 1.4 6.1
14 500 1.4 6.2
15 456 1.2 5.6
16 442 1.2 5.4
17 442 1.2 5.4
18 442 1.2 5.4
19 381 1.0 4.7
20 338 0.9 4.2
21 348 1.0 4.3
22 259 0.7 3.2
23 213 0.6 2.6
Total 8,114 22.2 100.0
50 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 39 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 15: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day Patterns of community demand by hour of day are also presented separately for DMR (n = 761 calls), ENC (n = 5,918 calls), and SOL (n = 1,435 calls) jurisdictions in Figure 16 through Figure

18. Note that maximum values on each y-axis change across figure to augment the pattern across hours for each jurisdiction.

0.6 0.5 0.4

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 0.9 1.0

0.7 0.6

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Average Number of Calls per Day
Hour of Day
EMS Fire Other
51 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 40 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 16: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – DMR Jurisdiction Figure 17: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – ENC Jurisdiction

0.04 0.03 0.03

0.03 0.01

0.03 0.03

0.08 0.09

0.10 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12

0.15 0.10

0.13 0.13 0.13

0.11 0.11

0.13 0.07

0.04 0.0

0.1 0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Average Number of Calls per Day
Hour of Day
EMS Fire Other

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.6 0.8

0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7 0.7

0.5 0.4

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Average Number of Calls per Day
Hour of Day
EMS Fire Other
52 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 41 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 18: Overall: Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day – SOL Jurisdiction Overall, valid units assigned to the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies made 9,842 responses to calls within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions, and the total busy hours were 3,450.7 hours during 2019. Valid units assigned to the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies also made 1,336 responses to mutual/auto-aid out calls, and were busy for 531.2 hours on these calls during 2019. Across all jurisdictions, valid units assigned to the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies made 11,178 responses, and the total busy hours were 3,981.9 hours.

The station-level demand is more reflective for deployment decisions, and the unit-level workload will help evaluate the utilization of physical apparatus, and assist with apparatus procurement or maintenance decisions (see section related to Unit Hour Utilization). SOL1 was the busiest station based on total busy hours within the DMR, ENC, and SOL jurisdictions (593.1 hours; 17.2% of total busy hours), whereas ENC3 was the busiest station based on total busy hours outside of the DMR, ENC, and SOL jurisdictions (128.4; 24.2% of total busy hours).

0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.2

0.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Average Number of Calls per Day
Hour of Day
EMS Fire Other
53 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 42 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 16: Overall Workload by Station and Jurisdiction – DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units Jurisdiction Station
Number of
Responses Made
by Units Assigned
to Station1
Responses
with Time
Data2
Total
Busy
Hours
Average
Busy
Minutes per
Response
Percentage
of Total
Busy Hours

DMR, ENC,
SOL
DMR1 1,016 1,015 394.0 23.3 11.4
ENC Admin 39 39 115.0 176.9 3.3
ENC1 1,264 1,264 397.3 18.9 11.5
ENC2 1,339 1,339 433.1 19.4 12.6
ENC3 1,343 1,343 524.8 23.4 15.2
ENC4 987 987 307.1 18.7 8.9
ENC5 1,461 1,461 456.7 18.8 13.2
ENC6 399 399 129.5 19.5 3.8
ENC7 359 359 100.2 16.8 2.9
SOL1 1,635 1,635 593.1 21.8 17.2
Total 9,842 9,841 3,450.7 21.0 100.0
Mutual/AutoAid Out
DMR1 269 268 96.9 21.7 18.2
ENC Admin 6 4 1.6 23.8 0.3
ENC1 36 36 41.5 69.2 7.8
ENC2 20 20 6.0 18.0 1.1
ENC3 396 396 128.4 19.5 24.2
ENC4 220 218 93.6 25.8 17.6
ENC5 82 82 28.6 20.9 5.4
ENC6 84 84 29.1 20.8 5.5
ENC7 0 -- -- -- --
SOL1 223 223 105.6 28.4 19.9
Total 1,336 1,331 531.2 23.9 100.0
All
DMR1 1,285 1,283 490.9 23.0 12.3
ENC Admin 45 43 116.5 162.6 2.9
ENC1 1,300 1,300 438.8 20.3 11.0
ENC2 1,359 1,359 439.1 19.4 11.0
ENC3 1,739 1,739 653.3 22.5 16.4
ENC4 1,207 1,205 400.7 19.9 10.1
ENC5 1,543 1,543 485.2 18.9 12.2
ENC6 483 483 158.6 19.7 4.0
ENC7 359 359 100.2 16.8 2.5
SOL1 1,858 1,858 698.6 22.6 17.5
Total 11,178 11,172 3,981.9 21.4 100.0
1 “Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies, regardless of calculated busy time. 2 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. 54 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 43 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Overall, valid units assigned to outside agencies made 816 responses to calls within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions, and the total busy hours were 517.1 hours during 2019.

Units assigned to Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District’s Station RSF1 contributed the greatest number of busy hours by outside agency units (229.2 hours; 44.3%) to calls within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions.

Table 17: Overall Workload by Station and Jurisdiction – Outside Agency Units Jurisdiction Station
Number of
Responses Made
by Units Assigned
to Station1
Responses
with Time
Data2
Total
Busy
Hours
Average
Busy
Minutes per
Response
Percentage
of Total
Busy Hours

DMR, ENC,
SOL
CBD1 17 17 10.1 35.6 2.0
CBD2 121 121 47.8 23.7 9.2
CBD3 4 4 4.9 73.9 1.0
CBD4 52 52 26.3 30.4 5.1
CBD5 28 28 28.7 61.4 5.5
CBD6 24 24 16.1 40.3 3.1
CDF - DSF 1 1 1 3.3 199.5 0.6
OCS AIRPORT 2 2 4.5 135.6 0.9
OCS2 1 1 0.0 1.8 0.0
OCS7 4 4 0.1 0.8 0.0
RSF Admin 2 2 0.3 9.0 0.1
RSF1 366 366 229.2 37.6 44.3
RSF2 10 10 2.9 17.4 0.6
RSF3 12 12 9.1 45.7 1.8
RSF4 46 46 32.5 42.4 6.3
RSF6 5 5 4.9 58.7 0.9
SMC1 2 2 0.1 2.7 0.0
SMC2 1 1 0.2 10.7 0.0
SMC4 3 3 0.3 6.7 0.1
SND ADMIN 4 4 9.8 147.0 1.9
SND24 68 68 29.2 25.8 5.6
SND35 27 27 29.8 66.3 5.8
SND40 3 3 2.4 48.1 0.5
SND46 1 1 0.1 8.3 0.0
SND47 4 4 3.2 48.6 0.6
VTA4 6 6 21.1 211.4 4.1
VTA5 2 2 0.1 1.9 0.0
Total 816 816 517.1 38.0 100.0
1 “Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to outside agencies, regardless of calculated busy time. 2 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to outside agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. 55 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 44 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Overview of Community Response Performance
The analysis in this section focuses on performance times related to dispatch, turnout, travel, and response times of first arriving units of distinct incidents. We focused our analysis on emergency (lights and sirens) responses from the first-arriving front-line units for all unique incidents in all demand zones.

Across all responses made by DMR, ENC, and SOL first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls in the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions, average dispatch time was

0.8 minutes; average turnout time was 1.1 minutes; average travel time was 4.2 minutes; and average response time was 6.1 minutes.

Call Processing or Dispatch Time
This is the element of time measured between when the PSAP answers the 911 call, processes the information, and subsequently dispatches DMR, ENC, SOL FD resources. The performance measure for call processing time for North County is once the 911 call is picked up.

Turnout Time
This is the element of time that is measured between the time the fire department is dispatched or alerted of the emergency incident and the time when the fire apparatus is enroute to the call.

Travel Time
The travel time is the element of time between when the unit went enroute, or began to travel to the incident, and their arrival on scene.

Total Response Time
The total response time, or total reflex time is the total time required to arrive on-scene beginning with 911 answering the phone request for service and the time that the units arrive on scene.

A more conservative and reliable measure of performance is the fractile or percentile. This measure is more robust, or less influenced by outliers, than measures of central tendency such as the average. Best practice is to measure at the 90th percentile. In other words, 90% of all performance is captured, expecting that 10% of the time the department may experience abnormal conditions that would typically be considered an outlier. For example, if the department were to report an average response time of six minutes, then in a normally 56 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 45 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
distributed set of data, half of the responses would be longer than six minutes and half of the responses would be less than six minutes. The 90th percentile communicates that 9 out of 10 times the department performance is predictable and thus more clearly articulated to policy makers and the community.

The performance for dispatch time at the 90th percentile was 1.2 minutes, turnout time at the 90th percentile was 1.8 minutes, travel time at the 90th percentile was 6.1 minutes, and total response time at the 90th percentile was 8.3 minutes.

Typically, performance varies across call types or categories for a variety of reasons. For example, turnout time may be longer for fire related calls because the crews have to dress in their personal protective ensemble (bunker gear) prior to leaving the station, whereas on an EMS incident, they do not. Similarly, the larger fire apparatus may require longer travel and overall response times due to its size and lack of maneuverability. 57 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 46 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 18: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency
Agency Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)

DMR, ENC,
SOL
EMS 0.8 1.1 4.1 6.0 5,854
Fire 0.9 1.1 4.5 6.5 1,068
Hazmat 1.1 1.1 4.8 7.0 95
Rescue 1.0 1.2 4.4 6.6 113
Unknown 0.9 1.2 3.7 5.8 57
Total 0.8 1.1 4.2 6.1 7,187
DMR
EMS 0.8 1.0 4.0 5.8 655
Fire 0.9 1.0 4.2 6.2 175
Hazmat 2.3 1.2 4.0 7.6 6
Rescue 0.9 0.9 4.0 5.8 17
Unknown 0.9 1.0 4.2 6.1 9
Total 0.8 1.0 4.0 5.9 862
ENC
EMS 0.8 1.1 4.2 6.1 4,339
Fire 0.9 1.1 4.6 6.6 692
Hazmat 1.0 1.1 4.9 6.9 80
Rescue 1.0 1.1 4.4 6.6 72
Unknown 0.9 1.2 3.7 5.8 41
Total 0.8 1.1 4.3 6.2 5,224
SOL
EMS 0.9 1.2 3.5 5.6 860
Fire 1.1 1.4 4.2 6.6 201
Hazmat 1.3 1.5 4.6 7.4 9
Rescue 0.9 1.5 4.6 7.0 24
Unknown 0.7 1.1 3.2 5.0 7
Total 0.9 1.2 3.7 5.8 1,101
1 Sample sizes reflect the number of responses made by first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. 58 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 47 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 19: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency
Agency Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)

DMR, ENC,
SOL
EMS 1.1 1.7 5.9 8.1 5,854
Fire 1.5 1.9 6.7 9.1 1,068
Hazmat 1.7 1.9 7.4 9.9 95
Rescue 1.6 1.8 6.8 9.2 113
Unknown 1.4 1.9 5.8 8.0 57
Total 1.2 1.8 6.1 8.3 7,187
DMR
EMS 1.1 1.7 5.7 7.9 655
Fire 1.4 1.8 6.2 8.6 175
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 6
Rescue 1.4 1.5 6.5 8.5 17
Unknown -- -- -- -- 9
Total 1.2 1.7 5.9 8.1 862
ENC
EMS 1.1 1.7 6.1 8.2 4,339
Fire 1.3 1.7 7.2 9.3 692
Hazmat 1.6 1.8 7.5 9.8 80
Rescue 1.6 1.8 7.1 10.1 72
Unknown 1.6 2.0 5.9 8.2 41
Total 1.1 1.7 6.2 8.4 5,224
SOL
EMS 1.4 1.9 5.7 8.0 860
Fire 2.1 2.2 6.7 9.2 201
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 9
Rescue 2.0 2.0 6.6 9.1 24
Unknown -- -- -- -- 7
Total 1.5 2.0 5.8 8.4 1,101
1 Sample sizes reflect the number of responses made by first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller.

Comparison to Best Practices
The combined territory is defined as an urban population density by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). Therefore, the baseline suggestions from the CFAI would be 5 minutes and 12 seconds travel time to 90% of the incidents. The CFAI goal is to provide a 4-minute travel time at the 90th percentile in accordance with NFPA 1710. For rural population densities a 13-minute travel time is allowed within the CFAI guidance7. In FITCH’s experience the most frequent range of performance for urban/suburban areas is between 5 and 8 minutes at the 90th percentile. Therefore, the current performance is well within comparator expectations. A table is provided below that compares current performance with national guidance.
7 CFAI. (2016). Fire & Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual: Interpretation Guide, 9th (ed.). Chantilly, Virginia:

Author. (p. 99)
59 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 48 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 20: Comparison of Response Times of DMR, ENC, SOL to Best Practices and National Experience Call
Category
Average
Travel
Time
90th
Percentile
Travel
Time
CFAI8
90th Percentile
Urban/Suburban
Travel Time
CFAI9
90th
Percentile
Rural
Travel
Time
NFPA
171010
90th
Percentile
Travel
Time
Fire 4:30 6:42 5:12 13:00 4:00
EMS 4:06 5:54 5:12 13:00 4:00
Figure 19: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions 8 CFAI. (2009). Fire & emergency service self-assessment manual, (8th ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. 9 Ibid. 10 National Fire Protection Association. (2016). NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Boston, MA:

National Fire Protection Association.

6.0 6.5

7.0 6.6

5.8 6.1
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 EMS Fire Hazmat Rescue Unknown Total
Time (Minutes)
Program
Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time
60 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 49 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Performance metrics were also calculated separately for the DMR jurisdiction, ENC jurisdiction, and SOL jurisdiction by agency. For example, the first section the table reflects performance when a unit from the DMR, ENC, or SOL agencies arrived first on scene to a call within the DMR jurisdiction. The second section in the table reflects performance when a unit from the DMR agency arrived first on scene to a call within the DMR jurisdiction.

Table 21: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in DMR Jurisdiction by Agency
Agency Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)

DMR, ENC,
SOL
EMS 0.8 1.0 4.2 6.1 456
Fire 0.9 1.0 4.5 6.4 157
Hazmat 2.2 1.3 4.9 8.4 7
Rescue 0.8 1.0 4.8 6.6 21
Unknown 1.0 0.9 4.2 6.1 6
Total 0.9 1.0 4.3 6.2 647
DMR
EMS 0.8 1.0 4.1 6.0 412
Fire 0.9 1.0 4.4 6.3 137
Hazmat 2.6 1.2 4.1 8.0 5
Rescue 0.9 0.9 4.1 5.9 16
Unknown 1.0 0.9 4.2 6.1 6
Total 0.9 1.0 4.2 6.1 576
ENC
EMS 1.5 0.2 11.7 13.4 2
Fire 0.5 0.3 3.5 4.3 4
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 0
Rescue -- -- -- -- 1
Unknown -- -- -- -- 0
Total 0.7 0.4 7.0 8.1 7
SOL
EMS 0.8 1.0 4.6 6.5 42
Fire 0.8 1.3 5.7 7.9 16
Hazmat 1.2 1.3 7.0 9.6 2
Rescue 0.7 1.6 5.7 7.9 4
Unknown -- -- -- -- 0
Total 0.8 1.2 5.0 7.1 64
1 Sample sizes reflect the number of responses made by first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. 61 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 50 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 22: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in DMR Jurisdiction by Agency
Agency Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)

DMR, ENC,
SOL
EMS 1.2 1.7 6.2 8.3 456
Fire 1.4 1.8 6.8 9.0 157
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 7
Rescue 1.2 1.9 7.5 9.5 21
Unknown -- -- -- -- 6
Total 1.3 1.7 6.3 8.6 647
DMR
EMS 1.2 1.6 5.9 8.1 412
Fire 1.4 1.7 6.5 8.7 137
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 5
Rescue 1.4 1.5 6.7 8.6 16
Unknown -- -- -- -- 6
Total 1.3 1.7 6.2 8.2 576
ENC
EMS -- -- -- -- 2
Fire -- -- -- -- 4
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 0
Rescue -- -- -- -- 1
Unknown -- -- -- -- 0
Total -- -- -- -- 7
SOL
EMS 1.1 1.7 7.5 9.6 42
Fire 1.5 2.0 8.8 10.5 16
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 2
Rescue -- -- -- -- 4
Unknown -- -- -- -- 0
Total 1.3 2.0 7.9 9.9 64
1 Sample sizes reflect the number of responses made by first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. 62 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 51 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 23: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in ENC Jurisdiction by Agency
Agency Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)

DMR, ENC,
SOL
EMS 0.8 1.1 4.2 6.1 4,383
Fire 0.9 1.1 4.6 6.6 689
Hazmat 1.0 1.1 4.9 7.0 80
Rescue 1.0 1.2 4.2 6.4 74
Unknown 0.9 1.2 3.8 5.8 42
Total 0.8 1.1 4.3 6.2 5,268
DMR
EMS -- -- -- -- 1
Fire -- -- -- -- 0
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 0
Rescue -- -- -- -- 0
Unknown -- -- -- -- 1
Total 0.3 1.4 5.9 7.7 2
ENC
EMS 0.8 1.1 4.2 6.1 4,321
Fire 0.9 1.1 4.6 6.6 683
Hazmat 1.0 1.1 4.8 6.9 79
Rescue 1.1 1.2 4.1 6.3 68
Unknown 0.9 1.2 3.7 5.8 41
Total 0.8 1.1 4.3 6.2 5,192
SOL
EMS 1.0 1.1 4.9 7.0 61
Fire 1.0 1.8 6.2 9.1 6
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 1
Rescue 0.9 1.5 5.1 7.6 6
Unknown -- -- -- -- 0
Total 1.0 1.2 5.0 7.3 74
1 Sample sizes reflect the number of responses made by first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. 63 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 52 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 24: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in ENC Jurisdiction by Agency
Agency Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)

DMR, ENC,
SOL
EMS 1.1 1.7 6.1 8.2 4,383
Fire 1.3 1.8 7.0 9.2 689
Hazmat 1.6 1.9 7.5 9.8 80
Rescue 1.6 1.8 6.7 9.2 74
Unknown 1.6 2.0 5.9 8.1 42
Total 1.1 1.7 6.2 8.4 5,268
DMR
EMS -- -- -- -- 1
Fire -- -- -- -- 0
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 0
Rescue -- -- -- -- 0
Unknown -- -- -- -- 1
Total -- -- -- -- 2
ENC
EMS 1.1 1.7 6.0 8.2 4,321
Fire 1.3 1.7 6.9 9.2 683
Hazmat 1.6 1.8 7.5 9.8 79
Rescue 1.6 1.8 6.7 9.2 68
Unknown 1.6 2.0 5.9 8.2 41
Total 1.1 1.7 6.2 8.3 5,192
SOL
EMS 1.9 1.8 6.8 9.3 61
Fire -- -- -- -- 6
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 1
Rescue -- -- -- -- 6
Unknown -- -- -- -- 0
Total 2.0 2.1 7.0 9.4 74
1 Sample sizes reflect the number of responses made by first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. 64 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 53 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 25: Average Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in SOL Jurisdiction by Agency
Agency Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)

DMR, ENC,
SOL
EMS 0.8 1.2 3.5 5.5 1,015
Fire 1.0 1.3 4.1 6.5 222
Hazmat 1.2 1.4 3.7 6.3 8
Rescue 1.0 1.4 4.7 7.0 18
Unknown 0.7 1.1 3.4 5.2 9
Total 0.9 1.2 3.6 5.7 1,272
DMR
EMS 0.8 1.1 3.7 5.5 242
Fire 0.8 1.0 3.8 5.6 38
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 1
Rescue -- -- -- -- 1
Unknown 0.9 1.0 4.0 5.9 2
Total 0.8 1.0 3.7 5.5 284
ENC
EMS 2.3 0.7 5.6 8.6 16
Fire 1.1 1.2 11.8 15.5 5
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 1
Rescue 0.7 1.0 8.2 9.9 3
Unknown -- -- -- -- 0
Total 1.8 0.9 7.1 9.8 25
SOL
EMS 0.8 1.2 3.4 5.4 757
Fire 1.1 1.3 4.0 6.4 179
Hazmat 1.3 1.5 3.4 6.2 6
Rescue 1.0 1.5 4.0 6.5 14
Unknown 0.7 1.1 3.2 5.0 7
Total 0.9 1.2 3.5 5.6 963
1 Sample sizes reflect the number of responses made by first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. 65 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 54 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 26: 90th Percentile Dispatch, Turnout, Travel, and Response Times by Program – First Arriving Units in SOL Jurisdiction by Agency
Agency Program Dispatch Time Turnout Time Travel Time Response Time Sample Size1 (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes)

DMR, ENC,
SOL
EMS 1.2 1.9 5.3 7.6 1,015
Fire 2.1 2.1 6.5 8.8 222
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 8
Rescue 2.0 1.9 9.3 11.2 18
Unknown -- -- -- -- 9
Total 1.4 2.0 5.5 7.8 1,272
DMR
EMS 1.0 1.8 5.3 7.4 242
Fire 1.3 2.0 5.0 7.4 38
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 1
Rescue -- -- -- -- 1
Unknown -- -- -- -- 2
Total 1.1 1.8 5.2 7.2 284
ENC
EMS 8.5 1.7 14.2 24.6 16
Fire -- -- -- -- 5
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 1
Rescue -- -- -- -- 3
Unknown -- -- -- -- 0
Total 2.5 1.9 16.0 21.1 25
SOL
EMS 1.3 1.9 5.1 7.5 757
Fire 2.2 2.2 5.9 8.6 179
Hazmat -- -- -- -- 6
Rescue 2.0 1.9 6.6 9.8 14
Unknown -- -- -- -- 7
Total 1.5 2.0 5.4 7.6 963
1 Sample sizes reflect the number of responses made by first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls; due to missing or excluded time data, sample sizes corresponding to individual table metrics may be smaller. 66 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 55 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Lastly, 90th percentile travel times are presented by unit type and agency in the table below, and 90th percentile total response times are presented by unit and agency in the following table (Table 28). Metrics reflect responses from first arriving primary front-line units to calls within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions.

Table 27: 90th Percentile Travel Times by Unit Type – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency
Agency Unit Type Travel Time
(Minutes)
Number
of First
Arrivals
Number of First
Arrivals with
Travel Times

DMR, ENC,
SOL
Battalion Chief 6.6 32 32
Brush Rig -- 1 1
Chief -- 6 6
Engine 6.0 5,649 5,644
Patrol 7.0 496 495
Truck 6.3 1,003 1,003
Total 6.1 7,187 7,181
DMR Engine 5.9 862 860
Total 5.9 862 860
ENC
Battalion Chief 6.6 32 32
Brush Rig -- 1 1
Chief -- 6 6
Engine 6.1 3,863 3,862
Patrol 7.0 496 495
Truck 6.3 826 826
Total 6.2 5,224 5,222
SOL
Engine 5.7 924 922
Truck 6.3 177 177
Total 5.8 1,101 1,099
67 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 56 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 28: 90th Percentile Response Times by Unit – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency
Agency Unit ID
Response
Time
(Minutes)
Number
of First
Arrivals
Number of First
Arrivals with
Response Times
DMR
E238 8.1 828 798
E238R 8.0 34 33
Total 8.1 862 831
ENC
B233 11.2 32 32
BR234 -- 1 1
C2302 -- 3 3
C2303 -- 1 1
C2306 -- 2 2
E231 8.0 955 954
E232 8.1 1,073 1,072
E233 8.9 833 833
E234 8.0 703 702
E235 8.4 299 299
PT236 9.2 289 289
PT239 8.7 207 206
T235 8.5 826 826
Total 8.4 5,224 5,220
SOL
E230 9.7 65 64
E237 8.0 858 846
E237R -- 1 1
T237 9.3 177 172
Total 8.4 1,101 1,083
The distributions of turnout and travel time were also analyzed. A total of 43.8% of calls had turnout times of one minute or less, and 94.9% of calls had turnout times of two minutes or less. A total of 95.5% calls had a travel time of eight minutes or less. 68 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 57 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 20: Distribution of Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit – All Emergency Calls Figure 21: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit – All Emergency Calls

11.9%

31.9%

36.6%

14.5%

3.6%

0.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0-0.5 >0.5-1.0 >1.0-1.5 >1.5-2.0 >2.0-2.5 >2.5-3.0 >3.0-3.5 >3.5-4.0 >4.0-4.5 >4.5-5.0 >5.0 Percentage of Calls
Number of Calls
Turnout Time (Minutes)

1.8%

6.7%

19.1%

27.7%

22.4%

11.5%

4.5%

2.2%

1.1% 0.8%

2.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-4 >4-5 >5-6 >6-7 >7-8 >8-9 >9-10 >10
Percentage of Calls
Number of Calls
Travel Time (Minutes)
69 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 58 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS & GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Community expectations were evaluated through direct interviews, specific communications with fire administration, labor representatives, city managers, and elected officials, as well as literature review such as budget, planning documents, and meeting minutes.

MISSION
Proudly committed to providing the highest level of service to our communities and the people we serve, by protecting life property and the environment.

VISION
To preserve the trust of our citizens through professionalism, customer service, and a commitment to excellence, while being responsive to the changing needs of our communities.

VALUES
Compassion, Courage, and Commitment with P.R.I.D.E.

Professionalism
Respect
Integrity
Dedication
Excellence
Motto
“Commitment to Excellence, Focused on Community”
70 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 59 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK LEVELS
Risk Assessment Methodology
Methodology
The risk assessment process utilized a systematic methodology to evaluate the unique risks that are specific to DMR, ENC, SOL FD’s response areas. This process evaluated risk from two broad perspectives. First, risk is identified through retrospective analyses of historical data.

Second, risk is evaluated prospectively providing the necessary structure to appropriately allocate personnel, apparatus, and fire stations that afford sufficient distribution and concentration of resources to mitigate those risks. This methodology also provides information for the cities to consider alternative solutions to assist in the mitigation of risks.

Service areas that either had little quantitative data, or did not require that level of analysis, were evaluated through both retrospective analysis as well as through structured interviews with Department staff members. In an effort to improve clarity, the following terminology is used for the remainder of the risk assessment description and analyses: retrospective risk will use the term Community Service Demands and prospective risk will use the term Community Risks.

The overall community risk assessment process and methods utilized by the jurisdiction are presented in the figure below.11
Figure 22: Community Risk Assessment Process
11 Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover.

Olathe, Kansas: Author.

Community Risk Assessment
Community Service
Demands
Incident
History
Incident
Type
Incident
Locations
Incident
Frequency
Community
Risks
Service
Program
Area
Station
Demand
Zones
71 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 60 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Community service demands were analyzed by the incident history, type, locations, and incident frequencies. Within this process, a temporal analysis was completed for each major program area and evaluated by station demand zone and the frequency of incidents. Each program area evaluated community risks, and risks are identified in each demand zone.

This methodology not only provides for sufficient allocation of resources to manage the readiness or preparedness aspects of the deployment strategy, but also balances the costs of readiness with an in-depth understanding of the probability of events through historical analyses. The combined results of this process were utilized to classify risk by severity utilizing a probability and consequence matrix for each program/risk area. Finally, the critical tasks required for each level of risk were identified. An example of the overall probability and consequence matrix is provided in the figure below.12
Figure 23: Probability and Consequence Matrix
12 CFAI. (2009). Fire & Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, 8th (ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. (p. 49) 72 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 61 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Planning Areas/Zones
DMR, ENC, SOL FD has eight distinct Station Demand Zones (SDZ) that are determined by utilizing the closest fire station based on the road network and distance serving that part of the community. Although DMR, ENC, SOL FD uses automatic vehicle locator (AVL) technology to dispatch the closest and most appropriate resources to incidents, SDZs are used to evaluate demand for services, demographic characteristics, and risks that are associated with each of the respective zones. The risks analyzed within each SDZ can include factors such as the probability and consequence of a given emergency, historical call demand, population density, and the type of construction and occupancies in the SDZ that may have an impact on factors such as fire flow and water distribution capacity. Effective planning efforts and analysis within each of the SDZs allow DMR, ENC, SOL FD to ensure the proper concentration and distribution of resources are present to meet the unique risks associated with each SDZ.

Community Characteristics of Risk
The risk categories presented in this section were described as hazards that the jurisdiction may be vulnerable to and can have a significant impact on the local economy, residents of the area, and the jurisdiction’s service delivery capabilities. Hazards were assessed by probability of occurrence and vulnerability as well as the likely impact on the community. The cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach utilize the San Diego County natural hazard mitigation plan which evaluates hazards using the following considerations and impacts:
• Geographic location: should the event occur, will it affect the entire state, region, or local jurisdiction?
• Previous occurrences: how often has this type of event occurred in the past? • Future probability: what is the likelihood of this type of event occurring in the future? • Magnitude/Severity: if the event were to occur, what would the impact be on the community and the economy?
Table 29: Natural Hazards Impacting San Diego County13
Event Location
Previous
Occurrences
Future
Probability
Magnitude and
Severity
Floods Regional Seasonal Occasional Extensive
Severe Coastal Storm Regional Seasonal Expected Extensive Extreme Weather Regional Perennial Expected Extensive
Severe Freeze Regional Seasonal Occasional Extensive
Earthquake Regional Sporadic Occasional Catastrophic
Wildland Fire Statewide Seasonal Expected Extensive
13 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/plans/op-area-plan/2018/2018-EOPBasic-Plan.pdf - Accessed September 28, 2020 73 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 62 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Geographic and Weather-Related Risks
Flooding
Flooding does not occur frequently within the region; however, portions of the jurisdiction lie within known flood plains. There are two creeks that run north and south of Encinitas, known as Escondido Creek and San Marcos Creek. The San Dieguito River runs through Del Mar near the State Fairgrounds. These waterways typically pose little threat to the community; however, all of these waterways carry run-off from the mountains directly east of the community and empty into the Pacific Ocean. Heavy rains on topography with little vegetation to handle the watershed may cause these creeks to overflow their banks resulting in flooding.

The City of Del Mar’s North Beach neighborhood is a beach-level neighborhood that is vulnerable to period flooding from the Pacific Ocean. Del Mar is also vulnerable to periodic flooding from the San Dieguito River on properties located along the San Dieguito Lagoon, including the State Fairgrounds. The City of Del Mar has adopted plans in place to reduce the flood risk through implementation of various adaptation measures including periodic dredging of the river channel, beach nourishment, sand retention/management, and flood management to protect public facilities, infrastructure, and public access.

Facilities such as the Del Mar Fire Station, Public Works Yard, and 17th Street Beach and Safety Center are public facilities that are identified as at-risk of flooding with the projected increase in sea level rise through the year 2100. The City will be considering whether to flood-proof, elevate, or relocate these faculties as part of its CIP program over the next two decades.

Acute flooding would adversely impact DMR, ENC, SOL FD operations by impeding travel routes and increasing calls for service. DMR, ENC, SOL FD has personnel and specialized training and equipment to handle these types of acute calls for service.

Extreme Weather
Southern California and the coastal communities are subjected to various types of severe weather including winter storms, storm surge, drought, and high winds. Extremely high temperatures and wind are the primary concerns during the summer and fall seasons due to the dangers of wildland fires. Storms and storm surge are primarily experienced in the winter months.
74 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 63 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Wildland Fires
The topography and weather of the region makes it very susceptible to wildland fires. During the summer months, high temperatures and light flashy vegetation with low fuel moisture contents create conditions that easily carry wildland fire. During the fall, high pressure forming in the high desert areas creates the same conditions but with very strong, dry winds (Santana/Santa Ana Winds) that create extreme fire danger to structures and people in the urban interface. These fires often overwhelm local resources, and all agencies rely on mutual aid to help during these events.

Earthquake
Southern California experiences earthquakes almost on a daily basis. Most of these seismic events are small and not easily noticed, but California is prone to larger-scale earthquakes every decade or two. The area in and immediately around San Diego County does not have an extensive history of earthquakes but Los Angeles, Riverside, and Imperial Counties have very high frequency and severity of earthquakes dating back to the 1800s. One of the additional hazards to beach communities is the possibility of tsunami as a result of a severe earthquake, locally or across the globe. Just like for fire and flood response, California and the San Diego County region have a robust mutual aid system to help DMR, ENC, SOL FD respond to these types of events.

Transportation Risks
Aviation
There are no airports within the jurisdiction, but San Diego International Airport is within 25 miles of the service area and poses the greatest aviation risk due to number of flights in and out of the airport. In 2019, traffic at the San Diego International Airport exceeded 25 million passengers; however, there has been no significant aviation incident associated with this airport since 1978.14 The heavy reliance on aircraft, both rotary and fixed-wing, to fight seasonal wildland fires is an additional risk as aircraft is used more often to protect structures in the urban interface.

In addition, the region has several airports that consistently utilize the coastal corridor for both fixed wing and rotary wing with general aviation, medical transportation, law enforcement, and military aircraft. The Palomar/McClellan Airport in Carlsbad has annual flights of 136,898. In 2017, 95% was general aviation, 4% air taxi and another 2% split evenly 14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_International_Airport - Accessed September 28, 2020 75 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 64 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
between scheduled commercial and military. In total there are 288 aircraft based at the airport with 59% single engine, 21% jet aircraft, 12% multi-engine aircraft, and 5% helicopters.

The Oceanside Airport is a general aviation airport. The USMC Miramar Air Station is a military airport to the southeast and utilizes both fixed and rotor wing aircraft. Similarly, the USMC Camp Pendleton Air Station is located to the north and utilizes both fixed and rotor wing aircraft.

There have been two significant incidents in the past decade involving a small place crash and a military helicopter landing on the beach in Solana Beach.

Railroad
DMR, ENC, SOL FD has several railroad operations through the service area. The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner operates 26 passenger trains per day on average with one stop in Solana Beach. The tracks run parallel to the ocean but pass through many of the commercial and high-occupancy residential areas posing additional risk in the case of derailment. A total of 3 million passengers pass through the service areas each year.

The North County Transit District Coaster is a light rail that operates 17 passenger trains per day on average. This passenger rail has stops in both Solana Beach and Encinitas. Annually,

1.4 million passengers pass through the service area. Finally, freight rails operate daily, primarily in the evening.

The combined rail experience in the service areas have resulted in several pedestrian and vehicle related incidents each year.

Highway
Several major transportation routes cross through boundaries of the service area, including Interstate 5, in addition to numerous State and County highways. Interstate 5 is the main north/south thoroughfare through the service area and ranks as the second highest in average daily traffic counts (400,000 in 2018).15 In addition to the high volume of vehicles, the type of vehicles such as large trucks and heavy equipment carrying cargo and hazardous materials required the organization to be prepared and trained in vehicle extrication and initial hazardous materials operations.
15 https://www.cahighways.org/stats3.html - Accessed September 15, 2020 76 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 65 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Traffic Calming Strategies
It is important to provide some context and juxtaposition on trends to install traffic calming devices through the communities. While the research does suggest that the traffic calming devices reduce motor vehicle incidents and their severity, an unintended consequence is that the fire and EMS responses may also be impeded for all call types, not just motor vehicles and pedestrians’ incidents. Therefore, an ongoing policy discourse should be accompanied by annual analyses to ensure that the net community level benefit is achieved.

Population Density, Development, and Growth
The 2019 population estimate for the service area was approximately 79,700. The population density within the jurisdiction is largely urban with more than 4,000 people per square mile; however, there are some suburban densities within the service area with population densities of less than 2,000 people per square mile.

Overall, the density for the jurisdiction is predominantly urban as defined by the Commision on Fire Accrediation International.
16 The Commission has traditionally recognized that rural designations are populations less than 1,000 per square mile, suburban is for populations between 1,000 and 2,000 per square mile, and urban is 2,000 or more per square mile.

Traditionally, recommended service levels for suburban populations are that the first due unit is capable of arriving within 6 minutes and 30 seconds travel time with a goal of 5 minutes.17 However, the CFAI has combined urban and suburban densities for first arriving apparatus at a baseline of 5:12 in the most recently released 9th Edition Interpretation Guide that accompanies the 9th Edition Self-Assessment Manual.18
16 CFAI. (2009). Fire & Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual, 8th (ed.). Chantilly, Virginia: Author. (p. 71) 17 Ibid. 18 CFAI. (2016). Fire & Emergency Service Self-Assessment Manual: Interpretation Guide, 9th (ed.). Chantilly, Virginia:

Author. (p. 99)
77 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 66 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 24: Population Density by Census Block – 2019
While the overall current aggregate baseline performance for DMR, ENC, SOL FD is well aligned with industry recommendations for urban and suburban densities from CFAI, it is important to recognize that CFAI continues to move towards emphasizing outcome-based measures and de-emphasizing singular measures of response time. This is evidenced by the fact that CFAI has removed content that requires specific response time parameters from the manual and placed it in a downloadable interpretation guide. Therefore, the Agency’s governance should retain the flexibility to establish policy related to meeting or exceeding the community’s expectations for service. DMR, ENC, SOL FD is currently meeting, and exceeding, the aggregate baseline performance recommendations for rural densities from CFAI and is not grossly deviant from urban/suburban guidelines.

An individual analysis of each fire station’s performance is provided in the Data Report. 78 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 67 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Call Density versus Population Density
The general relationship in most communities that have both urban or suburban and rural areas consists of a city center or concentrated area that then transitions to largely rural and agricultural areas creating a natural service policy option to utilize differentiated performance-based service models based on population density alone. However, the DMR, ENC, SOL FD service area is unique in that the area is largely urban/suburban with the only rural densities largely associated with large-parcel residential single-family neighborhoods in the northeast area/Olivehain (serviced by ENC 6). The relative distribution of the neighborhood levels, risks, and call volume is considered, as the surrogate measure of population density alone was limited in practicality. In other words, it would be cost prohibitive to place a fire station in every planned neighborhood and discard the overall system responsibility of coverage.

Therefore, an analysis was conducted to examine the relative densities of urban/suburban level requests for service and rural level requests for service.

There are three steps to determine urban/suburban (high risk) and rural (low risk) incident zones:

1. Use the predetermined political boundaries of the jurisdiction as the mapping area.

2. Import the historical data for demands for service onto this map.

3. Create a grid of approximately 0.5 miles (0.56 mi) squares that covers the area to be evaluated. For all squares in the half-mile grid, the analysis counts the number of incident locations that fall within each square. For each half-mile square, the analysis also determines the number of incidents that fall within the eight adjacent half-mile squares in the grid. This methodology removes the artifact or potential that a singular address, such as a nursing home, can affect a square to such a degree that it becomes urban (high-density demand) without truly exhibiting high-density demand over the whole square.

The outcome of this process results in the map of incident zones presented in the figure below:
§ RED: Urban Incident Zones—two calls per half mile per month with at least half the adjacent square half miles having the same number of calls per month. § GREEN: Suburban/Rural Incident Zones —at least one call per half mile square every six months with at least half the adjacent square half miles having the same number of calls per month.
§ No Color: Remote Incident Zones —less than one call per square half mile every six months.
79 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 68 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
This analysis supports the Agency’s approach to ensuring a commensurate service level throughout the community, since the differentiation for rural call densities does not have a clear demarcation that transitions from one service model to another. The systems approach to providing services that meet expectations for the higher densities will naturally cover the variability in densities. Finally, when examining the station location placements (distribution) the stations are well aligned with the urban/suburban call densities (risk).

Figure 25: Urban and Rural Call Density Map with Current Stations 80 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 69 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
When referring to the marginal utility analysis provided in the tables on the following pages, ascending rank order is the station’s capability to cover risk (incidents) for all calls (i.e., EMS, fire, hazmat, rescue, and unknown) in relation to the total historical call volume of the sample period (2019). Station is the identifier for the current DMR, ENC (excluding ENC7, unless otherwise specified), or SOL station; station capture is the number of calls the station would capture within the specified travel time parameter; total capture is the cumulative number of calls captured with the addition of each fire station; and percent capture is the cumulative percentage of risk covered with the addition of each fire station.

The goal would be to achieve at least 90% capture. Figures depict drive time mapping.

Commensurate System Evaluation
Results suggest that with three stations, 90.24% of calls could be responded to within 6 minutes or less travel time and will achieve nearly 98% capture with all eight stations. When referring to the mapping output, the green and yellow shading is representative of the 6- minute travel time polygons associated with the most parsimonious models. Green shaded areas reflect the coverage area of stations included in the analysis (“in plan”); darker green shaded areas indicate overlapping coverage between or across stations; and yellow shading reflects the coverage areas of stations not included in the analysis (“not in plan”), as they do not contribute to “Station Capture” in the analysis at the specified travel time due to other stations providing all of the necessary coverage.

Table 30: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Travel Time19 Rank Station Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 ENC5 4,935 4,935 60.82%
2 DMR1 1,927 6,862 84.57%
3 ENC3 460 7,322 90.24%
4 SOL1 268 7,590 93.54%
5 ENC2 192 7,782 95.91%
6 ENC6 153 7,935 97.79%
7 ENC1 7 7,942 97.88%
8 ENC4 7 7,949 97.97%
19 Since one PSAP was unable to geocode call locations for a period of time multiple years of response data were utilized to validate the analysis. This is the basis for the total capture exceeding the annual call volume. 81 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 70 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 26: Current Fire Station Bleed Map for 6-Minute Travel Time If SOL 1 was included to increase capture to nearly 94% of all calls within 6 minutes, the mapping is provided on the next page. The SOL 1 polygon is presented in yellow to differentiate between the three- and four-station models. 82 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 71 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 27: Current Fire Station and SOL 1 Bleed Map for 6-Minute Travel Time The green and yellow shading is illustrative of the 6-minute urban/suburban areas travel time coverage. Any of the DMR, ENC, SOL FD jurisdiction that is not shaded is representative of approximately 6% of the incidents, providing overwhelming validation of the distribution model currently utilized.
83 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 72 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Urban and Rural Differentiated Performance Objectives – Encinitas Only When referring to the analysis provided below, three stations have two performance layers for both the urban/suburban and rural areas that are intermittently dispersed throughout each SDZ. Within the urban/suburban densities, the distribution and performance models achieve approximately 92% of all calls within 6 minutes travel time or less. Additionally, each station provides a 10-minute travel time to the rural areas within the SDZs that achieve nearly 100% of all incidents within the 10-minute travel time or less.

The largest rural area is associated with ENC Station 6’s area. Therefore, two configurations were developed that include ENC Stations 2, 5, and 6 and ENC Stations 3, 5, and 6, respectively.

The 3, 5, and 6 combination provides slightly better coverage. Both models are presented for consideration.
6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time – ENC Only Station 6 Required Results suggest that with three stations, 92.48% of calls could be responded to within 6 minutes or less travel time. Additionally, with a 10-minute travel time threshold on for rural calls, 99.53% of the calls could be covered within 10 minutes.

Table 31: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time – ENC 2, 5, 6 Rank Station Urban/Rural
Class Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture
1 E5 U 4,935 4,935 83.39%
2 E2 U 385 5,320 89.90%
3 E6 U 153 5,473 92.48%
4 E5 R 342 5,815 98.26%
5 E6 R 74 5,889 99.51%
6 E2 R 1 5,890 99.53%
84 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 73 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 28: Current Fire Station Bleed Map for 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time –ENC 2, 5, 6 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time –ENC Only Stations 3,5,6 Required Results suggest that with two stations, 91.16% of calls could be responded to within 6 minutes or less travel time. Additionally, with a 10-minute travel time threshold on for rural calls,

99.53% of the calls could be covered within 10 minutes.

Table 32: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time – ENC 3, 5, 620 Rank Station Urban/Rural
Class Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture
1 E3 U 3727 3727 62.98%
2 E5 U 1668 5395 91.16%
3 E6 U 162 5557 93.90%
4 E3 R 228 5785 97.75%
5 E5 R 31 5816 98.28%
6 E6 R 74 5890 99.53%
20 Since one PSAP was unable to geocode call locations for a period of time multiple years of response data were utilized to validate the analysis. This is the basis for the total capture exceeding the annual call volume. 85 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 74 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 29: Current Fire Station Bleed Map for 6-Minute Urban and 10-Minute Rural Travel Time –ENC 3, 5, 6 86 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 75 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
The GIS output is provided below. The green shading is illustrative of the 6-minute urban/suburban areas travel time coverage. Any of the DMR, ENC, SOL FD jurisdiction that is not shaded, is representative of less than 10% of the incidents providing overwhelming validation of the distribution model currently utilized.

Figure 30: Current Fire Station Bleed Maps for 6-Minute Urban Travel Times 87 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 76 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Projected Growth
However, as a growing community, the population change is increasing with the majority of census block areas within the service area of less than 2% annual growth (-1.25% to 1.9%). There are a few areas within the service area exceeding 2% annual growth rates. Due to the highly desired real estate market in the service area, there are no reductions in population projected.

Figure 31: Annual Population Change - 2019-2024
88 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 77 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Generally, older populations and very young populations are considered to be most vulnerable to the frequency and incidents of fire. In addition, older populations historically utilize EMS services with greater frequency. It is important to understand--what field crews often recognize intuitively--that the distribution of population risks is not uniform across the jurisdiction. According to these data, the majority of the jurisdiction has populations with the median ages ranging from 36-53 years. The median age is provided below.

Figure 32: Median Age – 2019
89 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 78 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
An increasing amount of literature is drawing attention to the anticipated acceleration of EMS demand by older populations.21,22 Coupled with the anticipated growth in elderly population across the US,23 EMS systems should be evaluating these specific demographic changes in order to better anticipate the rising demand on EMS services. Demographic trends indicate population shifts will be more dramatic, with an accompanying dramatic increase in EMS services.

The available data set illustrates an average annual growth rate of approximately 4.5% for future call volume. The following straight-line projection should be used with caution due to the wide variability across years. However, in all cases, data must be reviewed annually to ensure timely updates to projections.
21 Clark, M. and FitzGerald, G. (1999). Older people’s use of ambulance services: a population-based analysis. J Accid Emerg Med 16:1
22 Tokuda, Y. et.al. (2010). Ambulance transport of the oldest old in Tokyo: a population-based study. J Epidemiol 20:6 23 See for example An Aging Nation. Accessed November 26, 2017 at https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/cb17-ff08_older_americans.html. 90 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 79 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 33: Projected Growth in Call Volume
Risk Assessment
Fire Suppression Services
DMR, ENC, SOL FD provides services for the suppression of fires through the use of eightfixed facilities housing six engines, two trucks, and one patrol unit that are fully equipped with water supply, hoses, portable ladders, and various tools. There is one Battalion Chief on duty each day who provides command-and-control activities at significant fires.

Community Service Demands – Fire
DMR, ENC, SOL FD responded to a total of 1,427 fire incidents, accounting for 17.6% of the total requests for service during 2019, and averaged 3.9 requests per day. There were 29 residential structure/building fires, 11 structure fires in apartments/condos, and 22 in commercial buildings. In total, there were 16 “working fires” split between eight residential, four apartment/condos, and four commercial. In addition, there were 36 vehicle fires and eight large vehicle fires. Overall, 77.6% of fire related calls were responded to by one unit, and 14.7% 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Number of Incidents
Reporting Period
Hypothetical 2% Hypothetical 6% Actual/Hypothetical 4.5% 91 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 80 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
were responded to by two units. For structure fire calls, 79.5% of calls were responded to by five or more units.

Table 33: Total Fire Related Calls by Nature of Call
Nature of Call1 Number
of Calls
Percentage of Total
Fire Service
Demands
FIRE ALARM - COMM 346 24.2
FIRE ALARM - RES 315 22.1
WATER PROB - FD 69 4.8
INVESTIGATION - FD 68 4.8
CARBON MONIX ALARM 67 4.7
FIRE ALARM PROBLEM 51 3.6
SMOKE CHECK 48 3.4
SNAKE REMOVAL 41 2.9
FIRE ALARM - APT / CONDO 38 2.7
MOVE-UP 38 2.7
VEHICLE FIRE 36 2.5
LOCK IN - VEHICLE / FD 32 2.2
PUBLIC SERVICE 32 2.2
STRUCTURE FIRE - RES 29 2.0
ILLEGAL BURNING 27 1.9
STRUCTURE FIRE - COMM 22 1.5
WIRES DOWN 22 1.5
FIRE - OTHER 18 1.3
HYDRANT LEAKING 18 1.3
TREE DOWN 13 0.9
FLOODING PROB - FD 11 0.8
STRUCTURE FIRE - APT / CONDO 11 0.8
VEHICLE FIRE - LARGE 8 0.6
WIRES ARCING 8 0.6
WORKING STRUC. RES 8 0.6
LOCKOUT - STRUCTURE 7 0.5
TRANSFORMER FIRE 7 0.5
EXPLOSIVE DEVICE FOUND 6 0.4
OVEN FIRE 4 0.3
TREE FIRE 4 0.3
WORKING STRUC. APT / CONDO 4 0.3
WORKING STRUC. COMM 4 0.3
DUMPSTER FIRE 3 0.2
POLE FIRE 3 0.2
92 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 81 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Nature of Call1 Number
of Calls
Percentage of Total
Fire Service
Demands
SPECIAL EVENT - FD 3 0.2
VEG FIRE - LOW 2 0.1
ANIMAL RESCUE / FD 1 0.1
BOMB THREAT 1 0.1
STRUCTURE FIRE - MOBILE HOME 1 0.1
TRASH FIRE 1 0.1
Total 1,427 100.0
1 Entries are presented verbatim from the data file.

Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in community demands for fire related services. These analyses examined the frequency of requests for service in 2019 by month, day of week, and hour of day. Results found that there was variability by month. The three months with the most fire related calls in descending order were: August (4.5 per day), November (4.4 per day), and June (4.3 per day). The three months with the fewest fire related calls in ascending order were: March (3.5 per day), February (3.6 per day), and July (3.6 per day).

Table 34: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month Month Number of
Calls
Average Calls
per Day
Call
Percentage
January 123 4.0 8.6
February 100 3.6 7.0
March 107 3.5 7.5
April 116 3.9 8.1
May 113 3.6 7.9
June 130 4.3 9.1
July 113 3.6 7.9
August 139 4.5 9.7
September 115 3.8 8.1
October 118 3.8 8.3
November 132 4.4 9.3
December 121 3.9 8.5
Total 1,427 3.9 100.0
93 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 82 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 34: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Month
0 1
2 3
4 5
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average Number of Calls per Day
Month
94 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 83 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Similar analyses were conducted for fire related calls by day of week. The data revealed that there is some variability in the demand for services by day of week. The three days with the most fire related calls in descending order were: Thursday (4.3 per day), Wednesday (4.2 per day), and Friday (4.1 per day). The three days with the fewest fire related calls in ascending order were: Sunday (3.5 per day), Tuesday (3.6 per day), and Saturday (3.8 per day).

Table 35: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week Day of
Week
Number of
Calls
Average Calls
per Day
Call
Percentage
Sunday 180 3.5 12.6
Monday 204 3.9 14.3
Tuesday1 189 3.6 13.2
Wednesday 220 4.2 15.4
Thursday 224 4.3 15.7
Friday 215 4.1 15.1
Saturday 195 3.8 13.7
Total 1,427 3.9 100.0
1 There were 53 Tuesdays during 2019, and 52 of all other days of the week during 2019.

Figure 35: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Day of Week 0 1
2 3
4 5
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Average Number of Calls per Day
Day of Week
95 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 84 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Fire related calls were also evaluated by hour of the day. Some variability exists in the time of day that requests for fire related services were received. The hours from 0100 to 0500 had the lowest demands, where average number of calls per day for each of those hours ranged from 0.04 to 0.07. The highest demand for fire related services occurred at 1700 (94 total calls during this hour in 2019), where average number of calls per day during that hour was 0.26.

Table 36: Total Fire Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day Hour of Day Number of
Calls
Average Calls
per Day
Call
Percentage
0 28 0.08 2.0
1 15 0.04 1.1
2 25 0.07 1.8
3 17 0.05 1.2
4 16 0.04 1.1
5 27 0.07 1.9
6 41 0.11 2.9
7 62 0.17 4.3
8 71 0.19 5.0
9 84 0.23 5.9
10 85 0.23 6.0
11 77 0.21 5.4
12 84 0.23 5.9
13 79 0.22 5.5
14 90 0.25 6.3
15 87 0.24 6.1
16 64 0.18 4.5
17 94 0.26 6.6
18 91 0.25 6.4
19 76 0.21 5.3
20 62 0.17 4.3
21 68 0.19 4.8
22 52 0.14 3.6
23 32 0.09 2.2
Total 1,427 3.9 100.0
96 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 85 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 36: Average Fire Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day DMR, ENC, SOL FD made a total of 2,044 responses to fire related calls. Total busy time was 926 hours, and the average busy minutes per response was 27.2 minutes. Solana Beach units had the most fire responses at 400, followed by Encinitas #3 (300) and #2 (260), respectively.

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Average Number of Calls per Day
Hour of Day
97 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 86 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 37: Workload by Station for Fire Related Calls
Program Jurisdiction Station
Number of
Responses
Made by Units
Assigned to
Station1
Responses
with Time
Data2
Total
Busy
Hours
Average
Busy
Minutes per
Response
Percentage
of Total
Busy Hours
Fire

DMR, ENC,
SOL
DMR1 244 243 97.7 24.1 10.6
ENC Admin 23 23 86.9 226.7 9.4
ENC1 205 205 91.3 26.7 9.9
ENC2 260 260 99.7 23.0 10.8
ENC3 300 300 183.2 36.6 19.8
ENC4 185 185 53.7 17.4 5.8
ENC5 257 257 98.3 23.0 10.6
ENC6 108 108 22.6 12.6 2.4
ENC7 62 62 12.9 12.5 1.4
SOL1 400 400 179.8 27.0 19.4
Total 2,044 2,043 926.3 27.2 100.0
Mutual/AutoAid Out
DMR1 63 62 20.0 19.3 8.6
ENC Admin 4 2 1.5 43.9 0.6
ENC1 12 12 25.8 129.2 11.1
ENC2 8 8 3.1 23.5 1.3
ENC3 117 117 55.9 28.6 24.0
ENC4 69 67 48.0 43.0 20.7
ENC5 40 40 16.3 24.5 7.0
ENC6 33 33 4.6 8.3 2.0
ENC7 0 -- -- -- --
SOL1 98 98 57.4 35.1 24.7
Total 444 439 232.6 31.8 100.0
All
DMR1 307 305 117.7 23.2 10.2
ENC Admin 27 25 88.4 212.1 7.6
ENC1 217 217 117.1 32.4 10.1
ENC2 268 268 102.8 23.0 8.9
ENC3 417 417 239.1 34.4 20.6
ENC4 254 252 101.8 24.2 8.8
ENC5 297 297 114.6 23.2 9.9
ENC6 141 141 27.2 11.6 2.3
ENC7 62 62 12.9 12.5 1.1
SOL1 498 498 237.2 28.6 20.5
Total 2,488 2,482 1,158.8 28.0 100.0
1 “Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies, regardless of calculated busy time. 2 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. 98 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 87 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
We also analyzed number of responding DMR, ENC, SOL FD units by fire related call type. Overall, 77.6% of fire related calls were responded to by one unit, and 14.7% were responded to by two units. However, for structure fire calls, 95% of calls (79/83) were responded to by three or more units. The maximum number of units responding to a structure fire call was 14. DMR, ENC, SOL FD was busy on structure fire calls for 489 hours during 2019, making 466 responses to 83 structure fire calls and averaging 5.6 responses per call. Average busy minutes per response was 63 minutes.

Table 38: Number of Responding Units by Fire Related Call Type Jurisdiction Call Type Number of
Calls1
Number of
Responses2
Average
Responses
per Call
Total Busy
Hours
Responses
with Time
Data3
Average Busy
Minutes per
Response
Average
Calls per
Day
Average
Responses
per Day

DMR, ENC,
SOL
Fire Alarm 806 952 1.2 174.0 951 11.0 2.2 2.6
Fire Other 365 431 1.2 165.4 431 23.0 1.0 1.2
Outside Fire 19 36 1.9 47.0 36 78.3 0.1 0.1
Public Service 72 85 1.2 23.0 85 16.3 0.2 0.2
Structure Fire 83 466 5.6 489.1 466 63.0 0.2 1.3
Vehicle Fire 42 74 1.8 27.6 74 22.4 0.1 0.2
Total 1,387 2,044 1.5 926.3 2,043 27.2 3.8 5.6
99 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 88 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 37: Percentage of Structure Fire Calls by Number of Responding Units

1.2%

3.6%

3.6%

13.3%

25.3% 28.9%

24.1%
One Unit
Two Units
Three Units
Four Units
Five Units
Six Units
≥ Seven Units
100 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 89 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Heat maps were created to identify the concentration of the historic demand (2019) for service by program area. Therefore, the following mapping will present the relative concentration of service demands by fire. The blue areas have the least demand, and the dark red areas have the highest concentration of demand.

Figure 38: Heat Map for Fire Related Incidents
101 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 90 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Occupancy-Level Risk
Occupancy risk was evaluated across the jurisdiction utilizing the independently evaluated ISO batch report. The variables available in the ISO data allowed the Department to evaluate occupancy-level risk based on Needed Fire Flow (NFF), Number of Stories, Square Footage, and the Building Combustion rating. Ultimately, a risk-rating matrix was developed that categorized 1,049 occupancies within the jurisdiction into high, moderate, and low risks.

Due to the relatively higher demands for personnel and apparatus required for fire events that have occupancy classifications deemed high risk, these risks garnished the highest ratings.

However, the presence of an automatic sprinkler system was not available in these data to elicit a moderating value to reduce risks for occupancies that were sprinklered. In this manner, the fact that 96% of the fires are controlled with sprinkler activation is not incorporated into the matrix for a more realistic risk factor rating. The results of the risk assessment process categorized the 1,049 occupancies into one high-risk structure, 775 moderate-risk structures, and 273 low-risk structures.

The risk matrix is provided on the next page as Table 39. 102 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 91 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 39: Occupancy-Level Risk Matrix
Risk Class
Needed Fire Flow Number of Stories Square Footage Building Combustion Total Risk Score Value Scale Value Scale Value Scale Value Scale Scale
High 5 ≥ 1500 gpm 5 ≥ 4 5
>=100k Sq.

Ft. 5
Quick
Free and Rapid
Burning
≥ 15
Moderate 3 > 499 and < 1500
gpm 3
> 1 and <
4 3
> 10k <
100k
Sq. Ft.
3 Combustible >6 and <15
Low 1 ≤ 499 gpm 1 1 1 < 10k
Sq. Ft.
1 Slow
Non/Limited
Combustible
≤ 6
103 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 92 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 39: High-Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone 104 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 93 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 40: Moderate-Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone 105 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 94 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 41: Low-Risk Occupancies by Station Demand Zone
106 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 95 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Probability/Consequence of Fire Event Risk
The relatively low frequency of fire related events requires the DMR, ENC, SOL FD to rely more heavily on the consequences of the events than the probability of the event occurring. For example, according to the Agency’s CAD final incident typing, the DMR, ENC, SOL FD responded to 83 structure fire incidents, accounting for approximately 9.4% of the total call volume.

The 911-communications center can assist in prioritizing risks prior to dispatching units. In this manner, the DMR, ENC, SOL FD is able to send an appropriate number of resources for each level of reported risk. For example, a fire in a commercial building will dispatch a greater number of resources than a fire alarm in a single-family residential home. The combination of relatively lower frequency and potentially higher consequences does not “fit” well into the two-dimensional probability consequence matrix as presented. Therefore, the example is intended to describe in broad terms the general types of calls that would fall into each level of risk for the public, understanding that many risks could be categorized into several risk levels depending on the information provided or conditions found. The detailed response matrices are updated as necessary and available from the District.

The resulting probability and consequence matrix is presented below.

Figure 42: Probability and Consequence Matrix for Fire Risk 107 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 96 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Critical Task Analysis
The critical tasks were developed by the DMR, ENC, SOL FD staff through a facilitated process that includes recommendations from the CFAI and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), as well as the current staffing and deployment model operating within the District.

The risk assessment profiles created utilizing the Agency’s risk assessment methodology were also considered in the development of the critical task matrices. Critical tasks were developed for low-, moderate-, and high-risk fire events. Low-risk events are events that single engines would typically handle such as vehicle fires, dumpster fires, and residential automatic fire alarms. Moderate-risk responses require additional resources to mitigate the event effectively and efficiently and are fire events typically responded to in residential structures.

High-risk events require considerable resources to effectively and efficiently mitigate the events and are fire events that may occur in large commercial or high-rise buildings. In addition to the critical tasks for personnel requirements, a similar process was conducted to establish the appropriate apparatus required to assemble the requisite personnel and equipment.

The DMR, ENC, SOL FD has very robust response matrices for all call types, and this section is intended as a reference for non-system experts as to what resource commitment is typically sent to each risk level and the critical tasks required to mitigate events. Examples of critical tasks are provided below for low-, moderate-, and high-risk fire events.

Table 40: Critical Tasks for Fire Responses - Low Risk
Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command / Control 1
Investigation / Extinguishment 2
Total 3
Table 41: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Fire Responses - Low Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Engine/Quint/Truck 3
Total Response Provided 3
Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 3
108 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 97 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 42: Critical Tasks for Fire Responses - Moderate Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command/Control/Safety 1
Pump Operator 1
Fire Control/Attack Line 2
Ventilation/Utilities 2
Primary Search/Secondary Search 2
Water Supply/RIT/On-Deck 3
Back -up Attack Line 2
Total 13
Table 43: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Fire Responses - Moderate Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Battalion Chief 1
On-Call Duty Chief/Training Chief or Captain 1
Engine 3
Engine 3
Engine 3
Engine/Quint 3
Ambulance 2
Total Response Provided 16
Table 44: Critical Tasks for Fire Responses - High Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command/Control 2
Fire Control 5
Search 3
Ventilation/Utilities 3
Water Supply/On-Deck 3
Pump Operator 1
Evacuation 2
Sub-Total Critical Tasks 19
Medical Standby/Rehab 2
Safety/Accountability 1
Total 22
109 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 98 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 45: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Fire Responses - High Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Battalion Chief 1
On-Call Duty Chief/Training Chief or Captain 1
Engine 3
Engine 3
Engine 3
Engine 3
Truck/Quint 3
Truck/Quint 3
ALS Ambulance 2
Total Response Provided 22
Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 19
110 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 99 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Emergency Medical Services
DMR, ENC, SOL FD provides for both ALS and BLS fire response with all transports being handled by AMR. All personnel of the DMR, ENC, SOL FD are certified as EMTs or Paramedics.

All personnel are able to size up the medical situation, conduct patient assessment, obtain vital signs and patient medical history, and initiate mitigation efforts.

Community Service Demands
Temporal analyses were conducted to evaluate patterns in community demands for EMS related services. These analyses examined the frequency of requests for service in 2019 by month, day of week, and hour of day. Results found that there was some variability by month.

The three months with the most EMS related calls in descending order were: June (19.1 per day), July (18.8 per day), and August (18.5 per day). The three months with the fewest EMS related calls in ascending order were: May (16.2 per day), February (16.3 per day), and November (16.6 per day). Results are presented below.

Table 46: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Month Month Number of
Calls
Average Calls
per Day
Call
Percentage
January 533 17.2 8.3
February 457 16.3 7.1
March 544 17.5 8.5
April 507 16.9 7.9
May 502 16.2 7.9
June 572 19.1 8.9
July 584 18.8 9.1
August 573 18.5 9.0
September 540 18.0 8.4
October 525 16.9 8.2
November 499 16.6 7.8
December 557 18.0 8.7
Total 6,393 17.5 100.0
111 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 100 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 43: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Month
0 5
10 15
20 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average Number of Calls per Day
Month
112 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 101 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Similar analyses were conducted for EMS related calls by day of week. The data revealed that there was some variability in demand for services by day of week. Monday had the highest frequency of requests for EMS related services, averaging 19.0 calls per day and accounting for 15.4% of all EMS related calls. Tuesday had the lowest frequency of requests for EMS related services, averaging 16.5 calls per day and accounting for 13.7% of all EMS related calls.

Table 47: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Day of Week Day of
Week
Number of
Calls
Average Calls
per Day
Call
Percentage
Sunday 879 16.9 13.7
Monday 986 19.0 15.4
Tuesday1 876 16.5 13.7
Wednesday 876 16.8 13.7
Thursday 931 17.9 14.6
Friday 908 17.5 14.2
Saturday 937 18.0 14.7
Total 6,393 17.5 100.0
1 There were 53 Tuesdays during 2019, and 52 of all other days of the week during 2019.

Figure 44: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Day of Week 0 5
10 15
20 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Average Number of Calls per Day
Day of Week
113 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 102 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
EMS related calls were also evaluated by hour of the day. Some variability exists in the time of day that requests for EMS related services were received. The hours from 0100 to 0600 had the lowest demands, where average number of calls per day for each of those hours ranged from 0.3 to 0.4. The highest demand for EMS related services occurred at 1200, where average number of calls per day during that hour was 1.1.

Table 48: Total EMS Related Calls and Average Calls per Day by Hour of Day Hour of Day Number of
Calls
Average Calls
per Day
Call
Percentage
0 168 0.5 2.6
1 156 0.4 2.4
2 128 0.4 2.0
3 122 0.3 1.9
4 120 0.3 1.9
5 132 0.4 2.1
6 145 0.4 2.3
7 216 0.6 3.4
8 291 0.8 4.6
9 350 1.0 5.5
10 387 1.1 6.1
11 403 1.1 6.3
12 404 1.1 6.3
13 398 1.1 6.2
14 394 1.1 6.2
15 354 1.0 5.5
16 358 1.0 5.6
17 329 0.9 5.1
18 339 0.9 5.3
19 299 0.8 4.7
20 271 0.7 4.2
21 260 0.7 4.1
22 199 0.5 3.1
23 170 0.5 2.7
Total 6,393 17.5 100.0
114 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 103 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 45: Average EMS Related Calls per Day by Hour of Day

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Average Number of Calls per Day
Hour of Day
115 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 104 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
EMS related requests accounted for 78.8% of the total requests for service during 2019 and averaged 17.5 requests per day. EMS related incidents are an aggregated category of the various final incident types available in the data file. The table below provides details for these EMS related incidents by nature of the call.

Table 49: Total EMS Related Calls by Nature of Call
Nature of Call1 Number
of Calls
Percentage of
Total EMS
Demands
MEDICAL AID 1,011 15.8
FALL - NOT HEIGHT 910 14.2
SICK PERSON (SPEC DIAG) 660 10.3
TC - TRAF COLLISION 472 7.4
BREATHING PROBLEMS 388 6.1
PERSON DOWN 319 5.0
CHEST PAIN 290 4.5
LIFT ASSIST 226 3.5
FAINTING SPELLS 206 3.2
SEIZURE 177 2.8
STROKE (CVA) 153 2.4
TRAUMATIC INJURIES 146 2.3
UNCONSCIOUS 145 2.3
ASSAULT 114 1.8
MEDICAL ALARM 109 1.7
ABDOMINAL PAIN 105 1.6
HEMORRHAGE 84 1.3
OVERDOSE 70 1.1
ALLERGIES (REACTIONS) 58 0.9
DIABETIC PROBLEMS 57 0.9
HEART PROBLEMS 55 0.9
SUICIDE ATTEMPT 53 0.8
BACK PAIN (NON-TRAUMATIC) 47 0.7
LACERATION 46 0.7
TC - MOTORCYCLE 39 0.6
NON-BREATHER 37 0.6
BIKE ACC 35 0.5
ENVENOMATIONS (STINGS / BITES) 35 0.5
PSYCHIATRIC / ABNORM BEHAVIOR 33 0.5
TC - VEH VS PED 32 0.5
CHOKING 30 0.5
TC - VEH VS BIKE 30 0.5
FALL - FROM HEIGHT 28 0.4
116 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 105 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Nature of Call1 Number
of Calls
Percentage of
Total EMS
Demands
EVALUATION 23 0.4
HEADACHE 23 0.4
11-44 / POSS DEATH 19 0.3
ANIMAL BITES / ATTACKS 19 0.3
CPR 18 0.3
5150 / PSYCH PROBLEMS 16 0.3
INTER-FACILITY TRANSFER 16 0.3
HEAT EXPOSURE 7 0.1
TC - VEH INTO STRUCTURE 6 0.1
EYE PROBLEM / INJURIES 5 0.1
TC - NO DETAILS 5 0.1
TRAIN VS PED 5 0.1
GUNSHOT INJURIES 4 0.1
POISONING (INGESTION) 4 0.1
PREGNANCY PROBLEMS 4 0.1
CARBON MONOXIDE INHALE 3 < 0.1
STABBING 3 < 0.1
CHILDBIRTH 2 < 0.1
COLD EXPOSURE 2 < 0.1
ASSIST INVALID 1 < 0.1
BURNS (SCALDS) 1 < 0.1
CARDIAC ARREST 1 < 0.1
CONVULSIONS 1 < 0.1
DROWNING (NEAR) 1 < 0.1
EXPLOSION/BLAST (MEDICAL) 1 < 0.1
MISCARRIAGE 1 < 0.1
PENETRATING TRAUMA 1 < 0.1
SEXUAL ASSAULT 1 < 0.1
Total 6,393 100.0
1 Entries are presented verbatim from the data file.

DMR, ENC, SOL FD made a total of 7,210 responses to EMS related calls. Total busy time was 2,242.2 hours, and the average busy minutes per response was 18.7 minutes. The station with the most EMS related responses was Solana Beach at 1,127 followed closely by Encinitas #5 at 1,124, and #2 with 1,010, respectively.
117 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 106 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 50: Workload by Station for EMS Related Calls
Program Jurisdiction Station
Number of
Responses
Made by Units
Assigned to
Station1
Responses
with Time
Data2
Total
Busy
Hours
Average
Busy
Minutes per
Response
Percentage
of Total
Busy Hours
EMS

DMR, ENC,
SOL
DMR1 724 724 277.9 23.0 12.4
ENC Admin 4 4 0.7 9.9 < 0.1
ENC1 999 999 281.7 16.9 12.6
ENC2 1,010 1,010 298.1 17.7 13.3
ENC3 902 902 272.0 18.1 12.1
ENC4 760 760 233.2 18.4 10.4
ENC5 1,124 1,124 331.5 17.7 14.8
ENC6 278 278 102.0 22.0 4.6
ENC7 282 282 78.0 16.6 3.5
SOL1 1,127 1,127 367.1 19.5 16.4
Total 7,210 7,210 2,242.2 18.7 100.0
Mutual/AutoAid Out
DMR1 191 191 71.6 22.5 31.5
ENC Admin 0 -- -- -- --
ENC1 21 21 4.2 12.1 1.9
ENC2 7 7 2.3 19.5 1.0
ENC3 236 236 59.9 15.2 26.4
ENC4 139 139 42.6 18.4 18.8
ENC5 16 16 5.0 18.9 2.2
ENC6 43 43 12.5 17.5 5.5
ENC7 0 -- -- -- --
SOL1 97 97 29.0 17.9 12.8
Total 750 750 227.3 18.2 100.0
All
DMR1 915 915 349.5 22.9 14.2
ENC Admin 4 4 0.7 9.9 < 0.1
ENC1 1,020 1,020 286.0 16.8 11.6
ENC2 1,017 1,017 300.4 17.7 12.2
ENC3 1,138 1,138 331.9 17.5 13.4
ENC4 899 899 275.8 18.4 11.2
ENC5 1,140 1,140 336.5 17.7 13.6
ENC6 321 321 114.6 21.4 4.6
ENC7 282 282 78.0 16.6 3.2
SOL1 1,224 1,224 396.1 19.4 16.0
Total 7,960 7,960 2,469.5 18.6 100.0
1 “Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies, regardless of calculated busy time. 2 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. 118 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 107 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Overall, 87.0% of EMS related calls were responded to by one fire unit, and 11.5% were responded to by two fire units.

Table 51: Number of Responding Units by EMS Related Call Type Call Category
Number of Responding Units
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or
More
Total
Cardiac and Stroke 448 62 0 0 0 0 0 510
Difficulty Breathing 372 38 4 0 0 0 0 414
Fall and Injury 1,296 123 4 0 0 0 0 1,423
Illness and Other 2,194 180 14 0 1 0 0 2,389
MVA 281 229 48 7 5 0 0 570
Overdose and Psychiatric 149 22 3 0 0 0 0 174
Possible Death 15 3 1 0 0 0 0 19
Public Service 219 7 0 0 0 0 0 226
Seizure and
Unconsciousness 495 59 5 0 0 0 0 559
Total 5,469 723 79 7 6 0 0 6,284
Percentage 87.0 11.5 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
119 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 108 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Transport
The number of EMS calls within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions with at least one response indicating a patient transport by AMR totaled 4,227 (4,227 of 5,798 total EMS calls to which AMR responded; 72.9% transport rate), averaging 11.6 transport EMS calls per day.

Duration of a call is defined as the difference between the alarm date and time and last unit cleared date and time. The average duration of a non-transport EMS call involving AMR was

20.7 minutes, and the average duration of a transport EMS call involving AMR was 54.8 minutes.

Table 52: EMS Non-Transport and Transport Calls by Call Type Call Category
Non-Transport Transport
Total
Number
of Calls
Transport
Rate
(%)
Average
Call
Duration
(Minutes)
Number
of Calls
Average
Call
Duration
(Minutes)
Number
of Calls
Cardiac and Stroke 30.4 40 55.2 454 494 91.9
Difficulty Breathing 23.2 56 55.2 338 394 85.8
Fall and Injury 22.0 342 55.8 1,060 1,402 75.6
Illness and Other 17.1 557 53.6 1,672 2,229 75.0
MVA 22.9 356 57.3 185 541 34.2
Overdose and Psychiatric 20.5 59 54.4 105 164 64.0
Possible Death 21.5 9 -- 0 9 0.0
Public Service 17.5 23 -- 0 23 0.0
Seizure and Unconsciousness 22.5 129 55.4 413 542 76.2
Total 20.7 1,571 54.8 4,227 5,798 72.9
1 Incident number 1908794 was reported as a “DispatchIncType” of “611E - EMS: Dispatched & cancelled en route,” but had a reported “FACILITYDATE” date and time for one of the units responding. 120 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 109 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
We also analyzed variation of total EMS requests and transport requests by hour of day. The variation of total EMS requests and EMS transport requests followed a similar pattern. The busiest period for EMS transport requests occurred at 1200, with 284 EMS transport calls. The peak transport rate also occurred at 0400, wherein 86 of 109 EMS calls (78.9%) resulted in one or more patients being transported by AMR.

Figure 46: AMR Average EMS Calls and EMS Calls with Transports per Day by Hour of Day Geospatial analyses were completed on all EMS incidents. The GIS analyses mapped historical call volume with the fire station locations identified. When reviewing the maps, the darker the shade (red), the greater the frequency of calls. The distribution of EMS calls follows a similar pattern as the fire related incidents; however, the distribution may be more concentrated on the agency’s East side, in the regions just to the East of Station 1 and East of Station 5.

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Average Number of Calls per Day
Hour of Day
EMS Calls
EMS Calls with Transports
121 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 110 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 47: Heat Map for EMS Related Incidents
122 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 111 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Community Risks24
In addition to the community response history for EMS incidents and types, the San Diego County Health and Human Services’ leading causes of death data were utilized to describe community health risks.

The major causes of death in 2018 for San Diego County included:
25 • Cancer
• Diseases of the heart
• Alzheimer’s disease
• Stroke
• Accidents (unintentional injuries)
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases
• Diabetes
• Influenza and pneumonia
• Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease • Intentional self-harm (suicide)
24County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency, Public Health Services Division, Community Health Statistics Unit, 2020. Retrieved from
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/community_health_statistics/CHSU_Mortali ty.html
25 Ibid.
123 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 112 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 48: Top 10 Leading Causes of Death in San Diego County, 201826 When reviewing the top five leading causes of death there is a high degree of alignment between San Diego County and the State of California with the exception of cancer supplanting heart disease within the County. However, the national experience has a higher frequency of accidents and chronic lower respiratory disease and the state and county have a much higher rate of Alzheimer’s disease.
26 Ibid.
124 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 113 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 49: Top Five Leading Causes of Death, 201827
Probability/Consequence of EMS Risk
DMR, ENC, SOL FD resources are dispatched by North County Dispatch PSAP (North County).

North County currently utilizes Emergency Medial Dispatching (EMD) and a partial Medical Priority Dispatching System (MPDS). Pre-arrival information is obtained from the calling party and incidents are categorized based on priority.

Figure 50: Probability and Consequence Matrix for EMS Risk 27 Ibid.
125 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 114 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Critical Task Analysis
In order to align resource allocation and risk for EMS, a critical task analysis was completed.

Results found that the most efficient and effective utilization of resources is to send the most efficient resources to the level of risk and patient acuity identified. Therefore, low-risk events may receive a single transport resource while a moderate-risk incident may receive two resources. As a matter of pre-determined dispatch, high risks required multiple resources to effectively mitigate the identified risk. Similarly, a process was completed to identify the resources allocated in order to ensure that the personnel required for the critical tasking is accomplished. The tables below reflect call types and resource allocations.

Low-risk EMS responses included incidents such as lift assists or medical concerns that do not require medical intervention.

Table 53: Critical Tasks for EMS Responses - Low Risk
Critical Task Needed Personnel
Patient Assessment 1
Medical Support 1
Total 2
Table 54: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for EMS Responses - Low Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Ambulance/Engine 2(3)
Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 2
126 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 115 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Moderate-risk EMS responses include call types of an emergent nature including motor vehicle accidents. Initial response for all moderate-risk EMS responses will include one engine and one ambulance. Depending on the location in the service area in which the incident occurs, automatic and mutual aid companies may be utilized to achieve the required ERF and ensure the quickest response for the patient.

Table 55: Critical Tasks for EMS Responses - Moderate Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command 1
Patient Assessment 1
Medical Support 1
Patient handling/Transport 2
Total 5
Table 56: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for EMS Responses - Moderate Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
ALS Ambulance 2
Engine 3
Total Response Provided 5
High-risk EMS responses are incidents that can be handled by agency resources, however the responses required resource allocation beyond a moderate-risk response. These types of incidents include responses where there are multiple patients.

Table 57: Critical Tasks for EMS Responses - High Risk
Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command 1
Patient Assessment/Triage 1
Medical Treatment 2
Patient handling/Transport 6
Total 10
Table 58: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for EMS Responses - High Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Battalion Chief 1
ALS Ambulance 2
ALS Ambulance 2
Engine 3
Engine 3
Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 10
Total Response Provided 11
127 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 116 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Hazardous Materials Services
The Agency responds to and mitigates hazardous materials incidents. All fire department personnel are trained to the Operations level for hazardous materials, thus making the fire suppression force the first line of response for low-risk incidents. Low-risk events would receive a response for early size-up and hazard abatement within their level of training and available resources. These types of hazardous materials incidents would include certain spills and gas leaks.

For moderate- or high-risk incidents that exceed the capability of DMR, ENC, SOL FD, the Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team (HIRT) from the San Diego County OES Operational Area may be summoned, which consists of the City of San Diego Fire Department Hazmat Team and County of San Diego Environmental Health Department.

Moderate- or high-risk hazardous materials events typically require additional resources for decontamination, entry, and medical monitoring, or events that require considerable duration and relief.

Community Service Demands
Fortunately for the Agency, the community’s demand for hazardous materials services is limited. While there is a potential exposure to hazardous materials risk, the demand for responses is low. This category accounted for 97 unique dispatches in 2019. Overall, hazardous materials responses account for 1% of the total demand for services. Agency data are reproduced in the table on the next page.
128 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 117 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 59: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Program Jurisdiction Program Number of
Calls1
Number of
Responses2
Average
Responses
per Call
Total Busy
Hours
Responses
with Time
Data3
Average Busy
Minutes per
Response
Average
Calls per
Day
Average
Responses
per Day

DMR, ENC, SOL
EMS 6,284 7,210 1.1 2,242.2 7,210 18.7 17.2 19.8
Fire 1,387 2,044 1.5 926.3 2,043 27.2 3.8 5.6
Hazmat 97 189 1.9 93.7 189 29.7 0.3 0.5
Rescue 120 320 2.7 169.0 320 31.7 0.3 0.9
Unknown 72 79 1.1 19.5 79 14.8 0.2 0.2
Total 7,960 9,842 1.2 3,450.7 9,841 21.0 21.8 27.0
1 “Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls following any exclusion activity (see Appendix). 2 “Number of Responses” reflects the total number of entries in the unit-level data file, regardless of calculated busy time. 3 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of responses in the unit-level data file with calculated busy time not otherwise missing or excluded (see Appendix).

The relatively low call volume renders temporal analyses unreliable since the events will be much more random than in larger data sets. In other words, the results would not be intuitive for decision making and no further analytical analyses were conducted.

However, a geospatial analysis of the requests for special operations incidents that include hazardous materials responses was conducted and is represented in the figure below. The distribution of calls is generally distributed throughout the county with specific concentrations in the areas of ENC Stations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Due to the relatively low frequency of hazardous materials incidents, the geospatial analysis does not suggest a more appropriate location to deploy resources for hazardous materials. 129 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 118 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 51: Heat Map for Hazardous Materials Incidents
Community Risks
Hazardous materials are part of everyday life and include everything from industrial chemicals and toxic waste to household detergents. Substances are classified as hazardous materials due to their chemical nature and pose a potential risk to life, health, or property if released or improperly used. Hazards can occur during production, storage, transportation, use or disposal. Emergency incidents can range from a chemical spill on a highway to groundwater contamination by naturally occurring methane gas. Facilities that manufacture, use, or store hazardous materials are required to report them to county Local Emergency Planning 130 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 119 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Committees (LEPCs) by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

This act is also known as Sara Title III.

The DMR, ENC, SOL FD works with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health - Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to evaluate, assess, and prepare for hazardous materials risks within the county.
28 The historical demand for hazardous materials services within the district is relatively limited.

Probability/Consequence of Hazardous Materials Risk
Figure 52: Probability and Consequence Hazardous Materials Matrix Critical Task Analysis
District staff created the critical tasks required for the mitigation of the various hazardous materials risks in the community. Critical tasks for low-, moderate-, and high-risk events are presented as well as the resources allocated to each event on the following pages. 28 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/deh/hazmat/hmd_cupa.html 131 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 120 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Low-risk hazardous materials responses involve an identifiable substance that may have leaked in a small quantity or an incident that can be handled by the first arriving unit. These incidents may include gasoline spills, carbon monoxide alarms, and natural gas leaks.

Table 60: Critical Tasks for Hazardous Materials Responses - Low Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command/Control 1
Investigate 2
Total 3
Table 61: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Hazardous Materials Responses - Low Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Engine 3
Total 3
For moderate- or high-risk incidents that exceed the capability of the DMR, ENC, SOL FD, the Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team (HIRT) from the San Diego County OES Operational Area may be summoned, which consists of the City of San Diego Fire Department Hazmat Team and County of San Diego Environmental Health Department. These incidents include flammable and combustible liquid spills and leaks that are a larger in nature, requiring assistance beyond the first arriving engine company.

Table 62: Critical Tasks for Hazardous Materials Responses - Moderate Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command and Control 1
Recon 2
Decontamination 2
Safety Officer 1
Containment 2
Medical/Rehab 1
Total 9
Table 63: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Hazardous Materials Responses - Moderate Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Battalion Chief 1
Engine 3
Engine 3
ALS Ambulance 2
Total 9
132 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 121 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 64: Critical Tasks for Hazardous Materials Responses - High Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command and Control 1
Operations Officer 1
Recon 2
Decontamination 2
Safety Officer 1
Entry 4
Medical 1
Research 1
Air Monitoring 1
Incident Support 3
Total 17
Table 65: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Hazardous Materials Responses - High Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Battalion Chief 1
Engine 3
Engine 3
Engine 3
Cross Staffed Hazardous Materials Unit 3
ALS Ambulance 2
ALS Ambulance 2
Total 17
Rescue Services
DMR, ENC, SOL FD provides initial response for technical rescue services within the jurisdiction. DMR, ENC, SOL FD will respond to technical rescue incidents and is equipped to extricate and treat injured patients and victims. DMR, ENC, SOL FD has the minimal equipment and basic operational abilities to begin mitigation strategies for most technical rescue incidents occurring in the jurisdiction. DMR, ENC, SOL FD is part of a county-wide mutual aid system and can provide additional assistance that can be utilized when moderateor high-risk incidents occur and require more advanced technician-level personnel and equipment from other providers in the area. DMR, ENC, SOL FD requires all line personnel to maintain training and certification at the Awareness level for Technical Rescue but maintains a cadre of personnel trained in Operational level in such areas as high-angle, low-angle, rescue systems, swift water, confined space, and trench rescue. 133 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 122 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Community Service Demands
Similar to the analyses for hazardous materials, the demand for rescue services is low in relation to the primary program areas. In 2019, there were 121 rescue incidents that accounted for 1.5% of the total demand for services.

Table 65: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Program Jurisdiction Program Number of
Calls1
Number of
Responses2
Average
Responses
per Call
Total Busy
Hours
Responses
with Time
Data3
Average Busy
Minutes per
Response
Average
Calls per
Day
Average
Responses
per Day

DMR, ENC, SOL
EMS 6,284 7,210 1.1 2,242.2 7,210 18.7 17.2 19.8
Fire 1,387 2,044 1.5 926.3 2,043 27.2 3.8 5.6
Hazmat 97 189 1.9 93.7 189 29.7 0.3 0.5
Rescue 120 320 2.7 169.0 320 31.7 0.3 0.9
Unknown 72 79 1.1 19.5 79 14.8 0.2 0.2
Total 7,960 9,842 1.2 3,450.7 9,841 21.0 21.8 27.0
1 “Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls following any exclusion activity (see Appendix). 2 “Number of Responses” reflects the total number of entries in the unit-level data file, regardless of calculated busy time. 3 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of responses in the unit-level data file with calculated busy time not otherwise missing or excluded (see Appendix).

The relatively low call volume renders temporal analyses unreliable since the events will be much more random than in larger data sets. In other words, the results would not be intuitive for decision making and no further analytical analyses were conducted. 134 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 123 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
However, a geospatial analysis of the requests for special operations incidents was conducted and is represented in the figure below. The distribution of calls is generally distributed throughout the service area at a lower frequency, but the highest concentration of calls occurs along the western edge of the jurisdiction, nearest ENC Stations 1, 3 and 5, SOL Station 1, and DMR Station 1, respectively. This is primarily due the demand for service caused by beach and water recreation related incidents. Due to the relatively low frequency of special operations incidents, the geospatial analysis does not suggest a more appropriate location to deploy resources for rescue services.

Figure 53: Heat Map for Rescue Related Incidents
135 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 124 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Community Risks
The Agency has experienced a historically low demand for technical rescue services as compared to the fire and EMS programs. The greatest concentration of technical rescue incidents occurs along the western edge of the service area.

Probability/Consequence of Technical Rescue Risk
Figure 54: Probability and Consequence Special and Technical Hazards Risk Matrix Critical Task Analysis
The DMR, ENC, SOL FD staff analyzed the critical tasks required for the mitigation of the various special operations risks in the community. Critical tasks for various events are presented as well as the resources allocated to each event.

Low-risk technical rescue incidents include responses to events such as elevator rescues and lock-outs and can routinely be handled by the first arriving unit. 136 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 125 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 66: Critical Tasks for Technical Rescue Responses - Low Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command/Control 1
Extrication 2
Total 3
Table 67: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Technical Rescue Responses - Low Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Engine 3
Total 3
Moderate-risk technical rescue incidents include responses to events such as trench rescue, high-angle and low-angle rescues, structure collapses, and extrications that require a greater number of personnel and resources to mitigate.

Table 68: Critical Tasks for Technical Rescue Responses - Moderate Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command and Control 1
Operations Officer 1
Recon 2
Extrication 3
Safety Officer 1
Medical 1
Total 9
Table 69: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Technical Rescue Responses - Moderate Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Battalion Chief 1
Engine 3
Engine 3
ALS Ambulance 2
Total 9
137 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 126 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
High-risk technical rescue incidents are events that exceed the training and capabilities of DMR, ENC, SOL FD and require the assistance of the San Diego County Operational Area.

Table 70: Critical Tasks for Technical Rescue Responses - High Risk Critical Task Needed Personnel
Command and Control 1
Operations Officer 1
Recon 2
Patient Stabilization 2
Safety Officer 1
Medical 2
Air Monitoring 1
Incident Support 4
Total 14
Table 71: Apparatus and Personnel Requirements for Technical Rescue Responses - High Risk Responding Units Minimum Staffing
Battalion Chief 1
On-Call Duty Chief/Training Chief or Captain 1
Engine 3
Engine 3
Engine 3
ALS Ambulance 2
ALS Ambulance 2
Personnel Required by Critical Tasks 14
Total Response Provided 15
138 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 127 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

REVIEW OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The first step in determining the current state of the DMR, ENC, SOL FD deployment model is to establish baseline measures of performance. This analysis is crucial to the ability to discuss alternatives to the status quo and in identifying opportunities for improvement. This portion of the analysis will focus efforts on elements of response time and the cascade of events that lead to timely response with the appropriate apparatus and personnel to mitigate the event.

Response time goals should be looked at in terms of total response time, which includes the dispatch or call processing time, turnout time, and travel time, respectively.

Cascade of Events
The cascade of events is the sum of the individual elements of time beginning with a state of normalcy and continuing until normalcy is once again returned through the mitigation of the event. The elements of time that are important to the ultimate outcome of a structure fire or critical medical emergency begin with the initiation of the event. For example, the first on-set of chest pain begins the biological and scientific time clock for heart damage irrespective of when 911 is notified. Similarly, a fire may begin and burn undetected for a period of time before the fire department is notified. The emergency response system does not have control over the time interval for manual recognition or the choice to request assistance.

Therefore, DMR, ENC, SOL FD utilizes quantifiable “hard” data points to measure and manage system performance. These elements include alarm processing, turnout time, travel time, and the time spent on-scene. An example of the cascade of events and the elements of performance utilized by the agency is provided in the figure below.

Detection
Is defined as the element of time between the time an event occurs, and someone detects it, and the emergency response system has been notified. This is typically accomplished by calling the 911 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). DMR, ENC, SOL FD is dispatched by North County Dispatch.

Call Processing or Dispatch Time
This is the element of time measured between when the PSAP answers the 911 call, processes the information, and subsequently dispatches DMR, ENC, SOL FD resources. The performance measure for call processing time for North County is once the 911 call is picked up. 139 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 128 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Turnout Time
This is the element of time that is measured between the time the fire department is dispatched or alerted of the emergency incident and the time when the fire apparatus is enroute to the call.

Travel Time
The travel time is the element of time between when the unit went enroute, or began to travel to the incident, and their arrival on scene.

Total Response Time
The total response time, or total reflex time is the total time required to arrive on-scene beginning with 911 answering the phone request for service and the time that the units arrive on scene.

Figure 55: Cascade of Events29
29 Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover.

Olathe, Kansas: Author.
140 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 129 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Response Time Continuum
Fire
The number one priority with structural fire incidents is to save lives followed by the minimization of property damage. A direct relationship exists between the timeliness of the response and the survivability of unprotected occupants and property damage. The most identifiable point of fire behavior is flashover.

Flashover is the point in fire growth where the contents of an entire area, including the smoke, reach their ignition temperature, resulting in a rapid-fire growth rendering the area unsurvivable by civilians and untenable for firefighters. Best practices would result in the fire department arriving and attacking the fire prior to the point of flashover. A representation of the traditional time temperature curve and the cascade of events is provided below.30 Figure 56: Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve 30 Example of Traditional Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffeebreak/time-vs-products-of-combustion.pdf 141 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 130 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Recent studies by Underwriter’s Laboratories (UL) have found that in compartment fires such as structure fires, flashover occurs within 4 minutes in modern fire environment. Modern home environments differ from traditional home environments with the addition of consumer furnishings made from petroleum-based products such as foam cushions and plastics. A compounding effect is also due to the advances in energy efficiency such as found in modern windows, insulation, etc. In addition, the UL research has identified an updated time temperature curve due to fires being ventilation controlled rather than fuel controlled as represented in the traditional time temperature curve. While this ventilation-controlled environment continues to provide a high risk to unprotected occupants to smoke and high heat, it does provide some advantage to property conservation efforts as water may be applied to the fire prior to ventilation and the subsequent flashover. An example of UL’s ventilation-controlled time temperature curve is provided below.31 Figure 57: Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve EMS
The effective response to EMS incidents also has a direct correlation to the ability to respond within a specified period. However, unlike structure fires, responding to EMS incidents introduces considerable variability in the level of clinical acuity. From this perspective, the association of response time and clinical outcome varies depending on the severity of the injury or the illness. Research has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of requests 31 UL/NIST Ventilation Controlled Time Temperature Curve. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/fire/fire_behavior.cfm 142 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 131 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
for EMS services are not time sensitive between 5 minutes and 11 minutes for emergency and 13 minutes for non-emergency responses.32 The 12-minute upper threshold is only the upper limit of the available research and is not a clinically significant time measure, as patients were not found to have a significantly different clinical outcome when the 12-minute threshold was exceeded.33
Out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the most identifiable and measured incident type for EMS. In an effort to demonstrate the relationship between response time and clinical outcome, a representation of the cascade of events and the time to defibrillation (shock) is presented below. The American Heart Association (AHA) has determined that brain damage will begin to occur between four and six minutes and become irreversible after 10 minutes without intervention.

Modern sudden cardiac arrest protocols recognize that high-quality CPR at the BLS level is a quality intervention until defibrillation can be delivered in shockable rhythms. The figure 34 on the next page is representative of a sudden cardiac arrest that is presenting in a shockable heart rhythm such as Ventricular Fibrillation (V-Fib) or Ventricular Tachycardia (V-Tach). 32 Blackwell, T.H., & Kaufman, J.S. (April 2002). Response time effectiveness: Comparison of response time and survival in an urban emergency medical services system. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(4): 289-295. 33 Blackwell, T.H., et al. (Oct-Dec 2009). Lack of association between prehospital response times and patient outcomes.

Prehospital Emergency Care, 13(4): 444-450. 34 Olathe Fire Department. (2012). Adapted from Community Risk and Emergency Services Analysis: Standard of Cover.

Olathe, Kansas: Author.
143 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 132 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 58: Cascade of Events for Sudden Cardiac Arrest with Shockable Rhythm It is important to note that many confounding variables are present in any of the broad response time to outcome relationships. For example, the recognition and detection phase previously discussed could have the greatest impact on the efficacy of the response system.

Distribution Factors
Comparison of Demand Zones
Geospatial analyses were completed regarding drive times that incorporated DMR, ENC, SOL FD’s current performance and nationally recommended best practices. Drive times from each of the current fixed facility fire stations were created utilizing existing road miles and impedance for a 6-minute drive time that most closely represents current performance. This analysis suggests that the majority of the jurisdiction should be able to be responded to within 6 minutes travel time for where the majority of the risk is located. The green shading indicates the estimated travel time capabilities from the existing road networks. The darker the green shading, the more overlap that exists between response capabilities within the current configuration. Finally, the number in parentheses, for example “(1),” indicates the order of contribution to system performance at the specific travel time goal 90% of the time or less. 144 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 133 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
6-Minute Travel Time
A 6-minute travel time analysis was created to evaluate the Agency’s capabilities with the current station configuration. Results suggest that with all eight fire stations, 97.97% of the incidents could be responded to within 6 minutes or less travel time. For example, referring to table and figure below, ENC Fire Station 5 would contribute the most to the overall success of the system and ENC Station 4 would contribute the least. The contribution is cumulative, as ENC Station 5 and DMR Station 1 combined can cover 84.57% of the incidents in 6 minutes or less.

Table 72: Marginal Fire Station Contribution for 6-Minute Travel Time35 Rank Station Station Capture Total Capture Percent Capture 1 ENC5 4,935 4,935 60.82%
2 DMR1 1,927 6,862 84.57%
3 ENC3 460 7,322 90.24%
4 SOL1 268 7,590 93.54%
5 ENC2 192 7,782 95.91%
6 ENC6 153 7,935 97.79%
7 ENC1 7 7,942 97.88%
8 ENC4 7 7,949 97.97%
35 Since one PSAP was unable to geocode call locations for a period of time multiple years of response data were utilized to validate the analysis. This is the basis for the total capture exceeding the annual call volume. 145 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 134 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 59: Current Fire Station Bleed Maps for 6-Minute Travel Time Comparison of Workloads by Demand Zone
Another method for assessing the effectiveness of the distribution model is to analyze the demand for services across the distribution model. Workload is assessed at the demand zone level and at the individual unit level. The highest volume of responses occurred from SOL 1 with 1,635 responses. ENC stations 5, 3, 2, and 1 all had call volumes between 1,461 and 1,264, in descending order.
146 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 135 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 73: Overall Workload by Station, Jurisdiction, and Program – DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units Program Jurisdiction Station
Number of
Responses
Made by Units
Assigned to
Station1
Responses
with Time
Data2
Total
Busy
Hours
Average
Busy
Minutes per
Response
Percentage
of Total
Busy Hours
All

DMR, ENC,
SOL
DMR1 1,016 1,015 394.0 23.3 11.4
ENC Admin 39 39 115.0 176.9 3.3
ENC1 1,264 1,264 397.3 18.9 11.5
ENC2 1,339 1,339 433.1 19.4 12.6
ENC3 1,343 1,343 524.8 23.4 15.2
ENC4 987 987 307.1 18.7 8.9
ENC5 1,461 1,461 456.7 18.8 13.2
ENC6 399 399 129.5 19.5 3.8
ENC7 359 359 100.2 16.8 2.9
SOL1 1,635 1,635 593.1 21.8 17.2
Total 9,842 9,841 3,450.7 21.0 100.0
Mutual/AutoAid Out
DMR1 269 268 96.9 21.7 18.2
ENC Admin 6 4 1.6 23.8 0.3
ENC1 36 36 41.5 69.2 7.8
ENC2 20 20 6.0 18.0 1.1
ENC3 396 396 128.4 19.5 24.2
ENC4 220 218 93.6 25.8 17.6
ENC5 82 82 28.6 20.9 5.4
ENC6 84 84 29.1 20.8 5.5
ENC7 0 -- -- -- --
SOL1 223 223 105.6 28.4 19.9
Total 1,336 1,331 531.2 23.9 100.0
All
DMR1 1,285 1,283 490.9 23.0 12.3
ENC Admin 45 43 116.5 162.6 2.9
ENC1 1,300 1,300 438.8 20.3 11.0
ENC2 1,359 1,359 439.1 19.4 11.0
ENC3 1,739 1,739 653.3 22.5 16.4
ENC4 1,207 1,205 400.7 19.9 10.1
ENC5 1,543 1,543 485.2 18.9 12.2
ENC6 483 483 158.6 19.7 4.0
ENC7 359 359 100.2 16.8 2.5
SOL1 1,858 1,858 698.6 22.6 17.5
Total 11,178 11,172 3,981.9 21.4 100.0
1 “Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies, regardless of calculated busy time. 2 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded. 147 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 136 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Comparison of Workloads by Unit Hour Utilization (UHU)
Another measure, time on task, is necessary to evaluate best practices in efficient system delivery and consider the impact workload has on personnel. Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) determinants were developed by mathematical model. This model includes both the proportion of calls handled in each major service area (Fire, EMS, Hazmat, and Rescue) and total unit time on task for these service categories in 2019. The resulting UHUs represent the percentage of the work period (24 hours) that is utilized responding to requests for service.

Historically, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has recommended that 24- hour units utilize 0.30, or 30% workload as an upper threshold.36 In other words this recommendation would have personnel spend no more than seven to eight hours per day on emergency incidents. These thresholds take into consideration the necessity to accomplish non-emergency activities such as training, health and wellness, public education, and fire and community risk reduction inspections.

The 4th edition of the IAFF EMS Guidebook no longer specifically identifies an upper threshold.

However, FITCH recommends that an upper unit utilization threshold of approximately 0.30, 0r 30%, would be considered best practice. In other words, units and personnel should not exceed 30%, or seven to eight hours, of their workday responding to calls. These recommendations are also validated in the literature. For example, in their review of the City of Rolling Meadows, the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association utilized a UHU threshold of 0.30 as an indication to add additional resources.37 Similarly, in a standards of cover study facilitated by the Center for Public Safety Excellence, the Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department utilizes a UHU of 0.30 as the upper limit in their standards of cover due to the necessity to accomplish other non-emergency activities.38
UHU analyses included units designated by the Encinitas leadership team and North County Dispatch team as 24-hour per day units (DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions). Select 24-hour per day units were cross-staffed (i.e., had their busy time combined), as follows:
• Brush rig BR234 was cross-staffed with engine E234.
• Brush rig BR235 was cross-staffed with engine E235 and truck T235; and • Engine E230 replaces truck T237 when the truck is out of service. 36 International Association of Firefighters. (1995). Emergency Medical Services: A Guidebook for Fire-Based Systems.

California, DC: Author. (p. 11)
37 Illinois Fire Chiefs Association. (2012). An Assessment of Deployment and Station Location: Rolling Meadows Fire Department. Rolling Meadows, Illinois: Author. (pp. 54-55) 38 Castle Rock Fire and Rescue Department. (2011). Community Risk Analysis and Standards of Cover. Castle Rock, Colorado:

Author. (p. 58)
148 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 137 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Unit PT239 was included in UHU analyses as a 12-hour per day unit. Reserve engines E238R and E237R do not have applicable UHU values. All units had UHU values < 0.30 meaning there is capacity in the system for future increases in service demands.

Only units with UHU values > 0.01 are displayed in the figure.

Figure 60: Unit Hour Utilization – DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Description of First Arriving Unit Performance
Additional analyses related to the response characteristics of first arriving units were conducted. The analyses in this first section focused on emergency (lights and sirens) responses from primary front-line units arriving first on scene for all distinct incidents. All unit responses were considered to be emergency (lights and sirens) responses throughout this report. DMR, ENC, and SOL units considered by Encinitas leadership and the North County Dispatch team to be primary front-line units appropriate for inclusion in performance time analyses included six engines, two trucks, one patrol, and one Battalion Chief (Current Deployment Strategy section for more detail).

To first recap the data presented previously for responses made in DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions, DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies together had an overall average dispatch time of 0.8 minutes, and a dispatch time of 1.2 minutes at the 90th percentile table below). 149 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 138 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Overall, DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies had an average turnout time of 1.1 minutes, and a turnout time of 1.8 minutes at the 90th percentile. A total of 3,146 of 7,184 calls with turnout times (43.8%) experienced turnout times of one minute or less, and 94.9% of calls (6,818/7,184) experienced turnout times of two minutes or less. The overall average travel time was 4.2 minutes; performance at the 90th percentile for travel time was 6.1 minutes. A total of 1,982 of 7,181 calls with travel times (27.6%) experienced travel times of three minutes or less, and

55.3% of calls (3,972/7,181) experienced travel times of four minutes or less. The average response time was 6.1 minutes; performance at the 90th percentile for response time was 8.3 minutes.

Table 74: Description of First Arriving Unit Emergency Response Performance in Minutes Measure Average 90th
Percentile
Dispatch Time 0.8 1.2
Turnout Time 1.1 1.8
Travel Time 4.2 6.1
Response Time 6.1 8.3
Figure 61: Distribution of Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit – All Emergency Calls

11.9%

31.9%

36.6%

14.5%

3.6%

0.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0-0.5 >0.5-1.0 >1.0-1.5 >1.5-2.0 >2.0-2.5 >2.5-3.0 >3.0-3.5 >3.5-4.0 >4.0-4.5 >4.5-5.0 >5.0 Percentage of Calls
Number of Calls
Turnout Time (Minutes)
150 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 139 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 62: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit – All Emergency Calls National recommendations provide differentiation between EMS and fire/special operations incidents. For example, the best practice for an EMS incident is a turnout time of 60 seconds or less 90% of the time. Due to the necessity to don personal protective equipment prior to responding to fire related incidents, best practices provide either 80 seconds (NFPA) or 90 seconds (CFAI) or less at the 90th percentile for turnout times associated with fire calls.

Therefore, turnout time and travel time is also reported by the major program areas of EMS and fire.

For EMS incidents, DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies together had an average turnout time of 1.1 minutes, and a turnout time of 1.7 minutes at the 90th percentile. A total of 2,555 of 5,851 calls with turnout times (43.7%) experienced turnout times of one minute or less, and 95.4% of calls (5,583/5,851) experienced turnout times of two minutes or less. The average travel time for EMS incidents was 4.1 minutes; performance at the 90th percentile for travel time was 5.9 minutes. A total of 1,644 of 5,848 calls with travel times (28.1%) experienced travel times of three minutes or less, and 56.8% of calls (3,322/5,848) experienced travel times of four minutes or less. The average response time for EMS calls was 6.0 minutes; performance at the 90th percentile for response time was 8.1 minutes.

1.8%

6.7%

19.1%

27.7%

22.4%

11.5%

4.5%

2.2%

1.1% 0.8%

2.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-4 >4-5 >5-6 >6-7 >7-8 >8-9 >9-10 >10
Percentage of Calls
Number of Calls
Travel Time (Minutes)
151 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 140 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
For fire related incidents, DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies together had an average turnout time of 1.1 minutes, and a turnout time of 1.9 minutes at the 90th percentile. A total of 481 of 1,068 calls with turnout times (45.0%) experienced turnout times of one minute or less, and 92.5% of calls (988/1,068) experienced turnout times of two minutes or less. The average travel time for fire related incidents was 4.5 minutes; performance at the 90th percentile for travel time was 6.7 minutes. A total of 277 of 1,068 calls with travel times (25.9%) experienced travel times of three minutes or less, and 49.3% of calls (526/1,068) experienced travel times of four minutes or less. The average response time for fire related calls was 6.5 minutes; performance at the 90th percentile for response time was 9.1 minutes.

Figure 63: Distribution of Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit – Emergency EMS Related Calls

11.7%

31.9%

37.7%

14.1%

3.2%

0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0-0.5 >0.5-1.0 >1.0-1.5 >1.5-2.0 >2.0-2.5 >2.5-3.0 >3.0-3.5 >3.5-4.0 >4.0-4.5 >4.5-5.0 >5.0 Percentage of Calls
Number of Calls
Turnout Time (Minutes)
152 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 141 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 64: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit – Emergency EMS Related Calls Figure 65: Distribution of Turnout Time of First Arriving Unit – Emergency Fire Related Calls

1.8%

6.8%

19.5%

28.7%

22.6%

11.0%

4.1%

1.9% 1.0% 0.7% 2.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-4 >4-5 >5-6 >6-7 >7-8 >8-9 >9-10 >10
Percentage of Calls
Number of Calls
Travel Time (Minutes)

12.8%

32.2% 31.7%

15.7%

5.4%

1.7%

0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 100
200
300
400
0-0.5 >0.5-1.0 >1.0-1.5 >1.5-2.0 >2.0-2.5 >2.5-3.0 >3.0-3.5 >3.5-4.0 >4.0-4.5 >4.5-5.0 >5.0 Percentage of Calls
Number of Calls
Turnout Time (Minutes)
153 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 142 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 66: Distribution of Travel Time of First Arriving Unit – Emergency Fire Related Calls

2.0%

6.2%

17.8%

23.3%

22.0%

13.6%

6.2%

3.5%

1.6% 1.1%

2.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 100
200
300
400
0-1 >1-2 >2-3 >3-4 >4-5 >5-6 >6-7 >7-8 >8-9 >9-10 >10
Percentage of Calls
Number of Calls
Travel Time (Minutes)
154 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 143 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
First Arriving Unit Response Time by Agency
Further analyses were conducted for each agency to measure the performance of the first arriving primary front-line units to emergency calls. Metrics reflect responses from first arriving primary front-line units to calls within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions.

Overall, the response time at the 90th percentile is well aligned across the three agencies, with the exception of the Station 6 (PT236) that has a significant rural coverage area.

Table 75: 90th Percentile Response Times by Unit – First Arriving Units in DMR, ENC, SOL Combined Jurisdictions by Agency
Agency Unit ID
Response
Time
(Minutes)
Number
of First
Arrivals
Number of First
Arrivals with
Response Times
DMR
E238 8.1 828 798
E238R 8.0 34 33
Total 8.1 862 831
ENC
B233 11.2 32 32
BR234 -- 1 1
C2302 -- 3 3
C2303 -- 1 1
C2306 -- 2 2
E231 8.0 955 954
E232 8.1 1,073 1,072
E233 8.9 833 833
E234 8.0 703 702
E235 8.4 299 299
PT236 9.2 289 289
PT239 8.7 207 206
T235 8.5 826 826
Total 8.4 5,224 5,220
SOL
E230 9.7 65 64
E237 8.0 858 846
E237R -- 1 1
T237 9.3 177 172
Total 8.4 1,101 1,083
155 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 144 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Concentration Factors
Concentration of Risks by Demand Zone
Analyses were conducted to describe and measure the relative concentration of risks in each of the fire station demand zones. Therefore, a station demand zone risk matrix was developed to quantitatively evaluate the relative risk by including measures for the frequency of moderate and high-risk occupancies in each fire demand zone that are directly correlated to the necessity of higher concentrations of resources. In addition, several measures were used that both serves the distribution aspect of the risk evaluation, but also contributes to the need for higher concentrations of resources. For example, a higher call volume may serve to drive the need for additional resources to cover the community’s demand.

The variables included in the risk matrix are the demand for services for each station demand zone, the number of high and moderate-risk occupancies, and the impact of simultaneous events in each station demand zone. All measures were weighted equally, however, two variables have surrogate relationships with historical community demands and one variable is dedicated to prospective occupancy risk. Community demands were rated more heavily in an effort to provide a realistic balance between the potential risk and historical experience. The risk tool and the scoring template are provided below.

Table 76: Station Demand Zone Risk Concentration Matrix Station Demand Zone Community Demand Call Concurrency High/Moderate Risk Occupancies
Total
Risk Score
Risk Rating
DMR 1 3 3 2 8.75 Low
ENC 1 3 2 2 6.63 Low
ENC 2 5 3 2 13.44 Low
ENC 3 3 2 2 6.63 Low
ENC 4 2 1 1 2.12 Low
ENC 5 8 4 4 33.94 Moderate
ENC 6 1 1 1 1.22 Low
ENC 7 1 1 2 2.12 Low
SOL 1 6 4 5 30.63 Moderate
Overall, the risk assessment identified that the majority of station demand zones are of low risk with two moderate-risk stations (stations ENC 5 and SOL 1). 156 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 145 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 77: Summary of Station Fire Demand Zone Risk Concentration Matrix Risk Class
Community Demand (D) Call Concurrency (C) High/Moderate Risk Occupancies (R) Total Risk Score
Value Scale (Calls) Value Scale (%) Value Scale (Occupancies) √ ($%)! + ($()! + ((%)!) )
Maximum ≥10 ≥5,400 ≥10 ≥ 31.5 ≥10 ≥450 ≥72
High 7 − 9 ≥ 3,600 and
< 5,400 7 − 9 ≥ 21 and< 31.5 7 to 9 ≥ 300 and <449 ≥ 39.35 and < 72 Moderate 4 to 6 ≥ 1,800 and <
3,600 4 to 6 ≥ 10.5 and < 21 4 to 6 ≥ 150 and < 300 ≥ 16.49 and < 39.35 Low 1 to 3 < 1,800 1 to 3 < 10.5 1 to 3 < 150 < 16.49
* Definitions for Occupancy Risk Type were provided as part of the full risk assessment previously. 157 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 146 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
These analyses result in a three-dimensional model that illustrates the representativeness of each of the variables as they contribute to each station’s risk profile. For example, one station may score heavily in potential risk and have moderate or low demand for services, and another station may have little potential risk but have high demand and call concurrency that drives the necessity for a greater concentration of resources.

Graphic representations of the three-axis risk matrices are provided below. When reviewing these radar figures, the larger the shaded area, the greater the risk. In addition, each axis is labeled so that the reader can determine the relationship between the risk drivers for each station area.

Figure 67: DMR Station 1 Risk Profile
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Risk
Station DMR 1
Low
158 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 147 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 68: ENC Station 1 Risk Profile
Figure 69: ENC Station 2 Risk Profile
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Risk
Station ENC 1
Low
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Risk
Station ENC 2
Low
159 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 148 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 70: ENC Station 3 Risk Profile
Figure 71: ENC Station 4 Risk Profile
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Risk
Station ENC 3
Low
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Risk
Station ENC 4
Low
160 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 149 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 72: ENC Station 5 Risk Profile
Figure 73: ENC Station 6 Risk Profile
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Risk
Station ENC 5
Moderate
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Risk
Station ENC 6
Low
161 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 150 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 77: SOL Station 1 Risk Profile
0 2
4 6
8 10
Demand
Call Concurrency Risk
Station SOL 1
Moderate
162 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 151 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Concentration of Resources
Effective Response Force Capabilities
The capability of an Effective Response Force (ERF) to assemble in a timely manner with the appropriate personnel, apparatus, and equipment is important to the success of a significant structure fire event. Therefore, it is important to measure the capabilities of assembling an ERF. In most fire departments, the distribution model performs satisfactorily, but it is not uncommon to be challenged to assemble an ERF in the recommended time frames. Several factors affect the capabilities to assemble an ERF such as the number of fire stations, number of units, and number of personnel on each unit. Each of these policy decisions should be made in relation to the community’s specific risks and the willingness to assume risk.

Due to the relatively low sample sizes for quantitative analysis for ERF, geospatial analysis was completed for the jurisdiction as a whole with each station area identified. Similar to previous discussions, there are two prevailing recommendations for the time to assemble an effective response force for structure fires. First, NFPA 1710 suggests that the Effective Response Force (ERF) should arrive in eight minutes travel time or less. Second, the CFAI provides a baseline travel time performance objective of 10 minutes and 24 seconds 90% of the time or less as well as a 13-minute travel time ERF for suburban areas. Therefore, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14-minute travel times were created to demonstrate the relative coverage throughout the jurisdiction.

Under the current configuration of stations and staffing, the results are presented below.

Overall, the Agency is able to assemble the desired ERF in the 10- to 12-minute time range, except for the extreme northeast quadrant of Encinitas, which is in line with industry standards. This analysis only utilizes DMR, ENC, SOL FD resources and staffing and does not contemplate the additional capacity provided by automatic and mutual aid partners that may contribute to greater depth.

Table 78: Comparisons of Effective Response Force Configurations Travel Time Objective Current
6-Minute 4.89%
8-Minute 42.08%
10-Minute 71.12%
12-Minute 84.46%
14-Minute 90.48%
It is recommended that the GIS analyses are given greater emphasis for ERF consideration since the sample sizes for quantitative analyses are relatively limited. The GIS analysis will provide a more accurate picture of actual performance.
163 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 152 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 78: 6-Minute ERF
164 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 153 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 79: 8-Minute ERF
165 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 154 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 80: 10-Minute ERF
166 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 155 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 81: 12-Minute ERF
167 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 156 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 82: 14-Minute ERF
168 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 157 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Reliability Factors
Percentage of System Compliance
The first step in assessing the reliability of the deployment model or system performance is to understand the system’s availability to handle requests for service that occur within the jurisdiction.

Percentage of First Due Compliance
The reliability of the distribution model is a factor of how often the response model is available and able to respond to the call within the assigned demand zone. If at least one unit from the first due station is able to respond to a call, we consider the station is able to response to the call within the assigned demand zone. However, a combination of closest unit dispatching and the lack of station zone specific data in CAD, the typical station reliability measure is outdated and lacks sufficient data to be calculated.

The origins of station reliability were a surrogate measure for the assumption that the system design had already determined the closest unit to all calls by the station location schema. In today’s environment, a surrogate assumption may no longer be appropriate when actual data can replace the assumption. Finally, the performance is the better measure as it discounts who provided the service, but rather that the service was provided within the desired performance. Therefore, an analysis to the sensitivity of unit drawdown on response time capabilities was developed.

Response Time Performance by Available Vehicles
We investigated whether response time performance deteriorated when there were fewer DMR, ENC, and SOL 24-hour per day primary front-line vehicles available. Units considered to be 24-hour per day primary front-line units for the purposes of available vehicles analyses included two brush rigs (i.e., BR234 and BR235), eight engines (i.e., E230, E231, E232, E233, E234, E235, E237, and E238), one patrol unit (i.e., PT236), and two trucks (i.e., T235 and T237).

Due to cross-staffed units BR234/E234, BR235/E235/T235, and E230/T237, a maximum of nine crew/teams (units) were considered to be available across the department.

Due to the number of records missing minimum call received dates and times, minimum unit dispatch dates and times were used in analyses instead. Responses made by the units listed above in DMR, ENC, and SOL jurisdictions and to mutual/auto-aid out calls were used to determine number of units responding to each call, number of units unavailable, and so forth. 169 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 158 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 79: Average and 90th Percentile Response Times in Minutes by Number of Available Vehicles Number of
Available
Vehicles Average
90th
Percentile
Sample Size
Calls
% of
Calls
9 6.4 8.9 5,157 66.0
8 6.4 8.9 1,662 21.3
7 6.7 9.3 593 7.6
6 6.7 10.9 176 2.3
5 7.0 12.6 97 1.2
4 6.0 9.8 44 0.6
3 6.2 9.5 19 0.2
2 6.3 10.7 28 0.4
1 8.9 14.7 29 0.4
0 7.2 17.2 14 0.2
Total 6.5 9.0 7,819 100.0
Figure 83: Average and 90th Percentile Response Times by Number of Available Vehicles Overlapped or Simultaneous Call Analysis
Overlapped or simultaneous calls are defined as another call being received in a demand zone (or jurisdiction) while one or more calls are already ongoing for the same demand zone (or jurisdiction). For example, if there is an ongoing call in DMR’s jurisdiction wherein all DMR, ENC, and SOL units have not yet been cleared, and another request for service occurs in DMR’s jurisdiction, those two calls would be captured as overlapped calls. Understanding the 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 5
10 15
9 8 7 6 5 4
Percent of Calls
Time (Minutes)
Number of Available Vehicles
Average Response Time 90th Percentile Response Time
170 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 159 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
percentage of overlapped calls may help to determine the number of units to staff for each jurisdiction. In general, the larger the call volume for a demand zone, the greater the likelihood of overlapped calls occurring. The distribution of the demand throughout the day will impact the chance of having overlapped calls. Additionally, the duration of a call plays a significant role; the longer it takes to clear a request, the greater the likelihood of having an overlapping request.

Results for these analyses are reported for all calls and by EMS and fire calls. Note that for EMS and fire calls, overlapped calls represent any call classified in its respective program area, but that overlapped with one or more calls from any program area. For example, DMR’s jurisdiction observed 40 calls during 2019 that overlapped with one or more calls within its jurisdiction—30 were classified as EMS calls, seven were classified as fire calls, one was classified as a rescue call, and two were classified as unknown calls. The 30 calls that were classified as EMS calls could have overlapped with one or more calls from EMS, fire, or other program areas.

Because individual demand zones within ENC’s jurisdiction are not available (as compared to the jurisdictions of DMR and SOL wherein the presence of one station in each jurisdiction essentially renders jurisdiction equivalent to Station 1’s demand zone), the ENC jurisdiction necessarily had the highest percentage of overlapped calls during 2019 for overall calls (21.1%), for EMS calls (17.5%), and for fire calls (2.7%).

Table 80: Overlapped Calls by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Overlapped
Calls Total Calls Percentage of Overlapped Calls
DMR 40 7071 5.7
ENC 1,224 5,8142 21.1
SOL 94 1,3753 6.8
1 18 calls were missing minimum call received dates and times. 2 Four calls were missing minimum call received dates and times. 3 42 calls were missing minimum call received dates and times. 171 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 160 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 84: Percentage of Overlapped Calls by Jurisdiction 172 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 161 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 81: Overlapped EMS Calls by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Overlapped
Calls Total Calls Percentage of Overlapped Calls
DMR 30 7071 4.2
ENC 1,016 5,8142 17.5
SOL 69 1,3753 5.0
1 18 calls were missing minimum call received dates and times. 2 Four calls were missing minimum call received dates and times. 3 42 calls were missing minimum call received dates and times.

Figure 85: Percentage of Overlapped EMS Calls by Jurisdiction 0 5
10 15
20 25

DMR ENC SOL
Percentage of Overlapped Calls
Jurisdiction
173 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 162 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Table 82: Overlapped Fire Calls by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Overlapped
Calls Total Calls Percentage of Overlapped Calls
DMR 7 7071 1.0
ENC 157 5,8142 2.7
SOL 21 1,3753 1.5
1 18 calls were missing minimum call received dates and times. 2 Four calls were missing minimum call received dates and times. 3 42 calls were missing minimum call received dates and times.

Figure 86: Percentage of Overlapped Fire Calls by Jurisdiction 0 5
10 15
20 25

DMR ENC SOL
Percentage of Overlapped Calls
Jurisdiction
174 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 163 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

BASELINE PERFORMANCE TABLES
From the reporting periods of 2018 to 2019, year-over-year (YoY) growth related to total call volume (i.e., based on CAD data) was -4.0% for DMR, 2.6% for ENC, 12.7% for SOL, 3.6% for DMR, ENC, and SOL combined, and 12.5% for mutual/auto-aid out. For DMR, ENC, and SOL combined, the average number of calls per day increased from 21.5 in 2018 to 22.2 in 2019. It is important to keep in mind this information will increase in validity if provided a larger data set of 3 to preferably 5 years.

Table 83: Number of Incidents Dispatched by Call Category, Jurisdiction, and Reporting Period1 Reporting Period by Jurisdiction
Call Category
DMR ENC SOL DMR, ENC, SOL Mutual/Auto-Aid
Out
2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019
Cardiac and Stroke 40 36 412 389 76 92 528 517 62 50
Difficulty Breathing 21 24 314 338 49 57 384 419 27 27
Fall and Injury 143 149 946 1075 245 218 1334 1442 102 105 Illness and Other 197 199 1879 1793 341 447 2417 2439 252 282 MVA 47 34 413 441 108 114 568 589 110 149
Overdose and Psychiatric 18 6 136 137 31 33 185 176 14 11 Possible Death 0 0 15 16 5 3 20 19 0 2
Public Service 9 9 205 171 47 46 261 226 2 7
Seizure and Unconsciousness 61 52 377 419 87 95 525 566 41 48 EMS Total 536 509 4,697 4,779 989 1,105 6,222 6,393 610 681 Aircraft Problem 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Fire Alarm 145 134 473 517 161 166 779 817 120 124
Fire Other 62 58 233 254 45 77 340 389 20 26
Outside Fire 5 1 24 16 1 3 30 20 18 9
Public Service 6 7 71 52 17 15 94 74 0 4
Strike Team 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 8
Structure Fire 5 7 60 55 12 21 77 83 80 100
175 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 164 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Reporting Period by Jurisdiction
Call Category
DMR ENC SOL DMR, ENC, SOL Mutual/Auto-Aid
Out
2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019
Vehicle Fire 2 2 31 33 9 9 42 44 11 16
Fire Total 225 209 892 927 245 291 1,362 1,427 265 288
Hazmat 12 9 65 82 12 8 89 99 28 27
Hazmat Total 12 9 65 82 12 8 89 99 28 27
Mutual Aid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Mutual Aid Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Rescue 17 23 73 78 20 20 110 121 43 57
Rescue Total 17 23 73 78 20 20 110 121 43 57
Unknown 3 11 42 52 7 11 52 74 2 14
Unknown Total 3 11 42 52 7 11 52 74 2 14
Total 793 761 5,769 5,918 1,273 1,435 7,835 8,114 950 1,069 Average Calls per Day 2.2 2.1 15.8 16.2 3.5 3.9 21.5 22.2 2.6 2.9 YoY Growth N/A -4.0% N/A 2.6% N/A 12.7% N/A 3.6% N/A 12.5% 1 Reporting periods reflect calendar years, from January 1 to December 31 of each respective period.

From the reporting periods of 2018 to 2019, the total number of responses to calls within the DMR, ENC, and SOL combined jurisdictions made by units assigned to the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies increased from 9,094 (average 24.9 responses per day) to 9,842 (average 27.0 responses per day). Total busy hours increased from 2,916.7 hours in 2018 to 3,450.7 hours in 2019. Average number of responses per call has remained fairly consistent across reporting periods at 1.2. Average busy minutes per response increased from 19.2 minutes in 2018 to 21.0 minutes in 2019. Table 84 also presents metrics separately for DMR, ENC, and SOL jurisdictions.

From the reporting periods of 2018 to 2019, the total number of responses to mutual/auto-aid out calls made by units assigned to the DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies increased from 1,174 (average 3.2 responses per day) to 1,336 (average 3.7 responses per day). 176 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 165 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Total busy hours increased from 499.8 hours in 2018 to 531.2 hours in 2019. Average number of responses per call has remained consistent across reporting periods at 1.2.

Table 84: Number of Calls, Number of Responses, and Total Busy Time by Reporting Period and Jurisdiction – DMR, ENC, and SOL Agency Units Jurisdiction Reporting
Period1
Number of
Calls2
Number of
Responses3
Average
Responses
per Call
Total Busy
Hours
Responses
with Time
Data4
Average Busy
Minutes per
Response
Average
Calls per
Day
Average
Responses
per Day
DMR
2018 769 844 1.1 323.2 844 23.0 2.1 2.3
2019 725 828 1.1 350.6 828 25.4 2.0 2.3
ENC
2018 5,664 6,728 1.2 2,093.8 6,728 18.7 15.5 18.4
2019 5,818 7,224 1.2 2,361.8 7,224 19.6 15.9 19.8
SOL
2018 1,262 1,522 1.2 499.7 1,522 19.7 3.5 4.2
2019 1,417 1,790 1.3 738.3 1,789 24.8 3.9 4.9

DMR, ENC, SOL
2018 7,695 9,094 1.2 2,916.7 9,094 19.2 21.1 24.9
2019 7,960 9,842 1.2 3,450.7 9,841 21.0 21.8 27.0
Mutual/AutoAid Out
2018 950 1,174 1.2 499.8 1,160 25.9 2.6 3.2
2019 1,069 1,336 1.2 531.2 1,331 23.9 2.9 3.7
1 Reporting periods reflect calendar years, from January 1 to December 31 of each respective period. 2 “Number of Calls” reflects an adjusted number of calls following any exclusion activity to align with valid responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies (see Appendix of the Data Report). 3
“Number of Responses” reflects the total number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies, regardless of calculated busy time.
4 “Responses with Time Data” reflects the number of records in the data file associated with responses made by units assigned to DMR, ENC, and SOL agencies with calculated busy time not otherwise excluded.
177 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 166 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENT
Benchmark:

Benchmark statements describe the ultimate level of performance that the Agency is striving to attain. It is not expected that the Agency meets this goal as much as they are using the goal in relation to actual performance, year over year, to show progress or continuous improvement. In other words, over time, the Agency should be moving closer and closer to the benchmark performance goal.

Baseline:

Baseline statements describe the Agency’s actual (current) performance. Best practice in the industry is to maintain a baseline within 70% to 80% of the benchmark so as not to fall into a state of gross deviation from the benchmark.

Performance Objectives – Benchmarks
Fire Suppression Services Program
For 90% of all priority structure fire incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of three personnel, within 9 minutes total response time. The first-due unit shall be capable of initiating a rescue, advancing a first attack line, or providing basic life support for victims.

For 90% of all priority moderate risk structure fire incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 13 personnel, shall arrive within 11 minutes total response time. The ERF shall be capable of preventing further escalation of the fire incident.

For 90% of all priority high-risk structure fire incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 19 personnel, shall arrive within 13 minutes total response time. The ERF shall be capable of preventing further escalation of the fire incident.
178 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 167 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Emergency Medical Services Program
For 90% of all priority ALS emergency medical incidents, the first due ALS unit, with a minimum of two personnel, shall arrive within 8 minutes total response time. The ALS unit shall be capable of providing advanced life support.

For 90% of all moderate-risk incidents, the ERF, consisting of 5 personnel, shall arrive within 10 minutes. The ERF should be capable of patient care and transport support.

For 90% of all high-risk incidents, the ERF of 10 personnel, shall arrive within 12 minutes.

Hazardous Materials Services Program
For 90% of all hazardous materials incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive with a minimum of three personnel, within 10 minutes total response time. The unit shall be capable of initiating the mitigation of a hazardous materials incident at the operations level.

For 90% of all moderate-risk hazardous materials incidents, the ERF, consisting of a minimum of 9 personnel, shall arrive with 12 minutes total response time.

For 90% of all high-risk hazardous materials incidents, the ERF, consisting of a minimum of 17 personnel, shall arrive within 20 minutes total response time.

The ERF shall be capable of mitigation of a hazardous materials incidence that may include entry, identification, recon, decontamination, and rehabilitation. A response from the Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team (HIRT) from the San Diego County OES Operational Area is available for major incidents.

Rescue Services Program
For 90% of all technical rescue incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of three personnel, within 9 minutes total response time. This unit shall be capable of initiating the mitigation of a technical rescue incident.

For 90% of all moderate-risk technical rescue incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 9 personnel, shall have a total response time within 11 minutes.

For 90% of all high-risk technical rescue incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 14 personnel, shall have a total response time within 13 minutes.
179 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 168 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
The ERF shall be capable of mitigation of a technical rescue incident that may include shoring, extrication, below-grade rescue, and high-angle rescue. A response from the San Diego County Operational Area is available for major incidents. The extremely limited sample size requires some assumptions based on the cumulative distribution of other more robust program areas.

Performance Objectives – Baselines
Fire Suppression Services Program
For 90% of all priority structure fire incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of three personnel, within 10 minutes and 48 seconds total response time. The first-due unit shall be capable of initiating a rescue, advancing a first attack line, or providing basic life support for victims.

For 90% of all priority moderate-risk structure fire incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 13 personnel, shall arrive within 13 minutes and 20 seconds total response time. The ERF shall be capable of preventing further escalation of the fire incident.

For 90% of all priority high-risk structure fire incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 19 personnel, shall arrive within 15 minutes and 36 total response time. The ERF shall be capable of preventing further escalation of the fire incident.

Emergency Medical Services Program
For 90% of all priority ALS emergency medical incidents, the first due ALS unit, with a minimum of two personnel, shall arrive within 9 minutes and 36 minutes total response time. The ALS unit shall be capable of providing advanced life support.

For 90% of all moderate-risk incidents, the ERF, consisting of 5 personnel, shall arrive within 10 minutes. The ERF should be capable of patient care and transport support.

For 90% of all high-risk incidents, the ERF of 10 personnel, shall arrive within 14 minutes and 24 seconds.
180 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 169 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Hazardous Materials Services Program
For 90% of all hazardous materials incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive with a minimum of three personnel, within 12 minutes total response time. The unit shall be capable of initiating the mitigation of a hazardous materials incident at the operations level.

For 90% of all moderate-risk hazardous materials incidents, the ERF, consisting of a minimum of 9 personnel, shall arrive with 14 minutes and 24 seconds total response time.

For 90% of all high-risk hazardous materials incidents, the ERF, consisting of a minimum of 17 personnel, shall arrive within 24 minutes total response time.

The ERF shall be capable of mitigation of a hazardous materials incidence that may include entry, identification, recon, decontamination, and rehabilitation. A response from the Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team (HIRT) from the San Diego County OES Operational Area is available for major incidents.

Rescue Services Program
For 90% of all technical rescue incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of three personnel, within 10 minutes and 48 seconds total response time. This unit shall be capable of initiating the mitigation of a technical rescue incidents.

For 90% of all moderate-risk technical rescue incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 9 personnel, shall have a total response time within 13 minutes and 12 seconds. *The extremely limited sample size makes any assumptions based on the cumulative distribution very unreliable. Therefore, no baseline ERF is provided for high risk.

The ERF shall be capable of mitigation of a technical rescue incident that may include shoring, extrication, below-grade rescue, and high-angle rescue. A response from the San Diego County Operational Area is available for major incidents. The extremely limited sample size requires some assumptions based on the cumulative distribution of other more robust program areas.
181 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 170 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

COMPLIANCE METHODOLOGY
This SOC document is designed to guide the Agency to continuously monitor performance, seek areas for improvement, and to clearly articulate service levels and performance to the community we have the privilege of serving. Therefore, the Fire Chief has established a Compliance Team to continuously monitor elements of this SOC and make recommendations for system adjustments or improvement quarterly.

Compliance Team / Responsibility
The Compliance Team will consist of the following Department members and will have the responsibility of continuously monitoring changes in risk, community service demands, and department performance in each program area, fire department demand zone, and/or risk category.
§ Chair – Fire Chief
§ Member – Deputy Chief
§ Member – Admin Battalion Chief
§ Member – Labor Representative
Performance Evaluation and Compliance Strategy
DMR, ENC, SOL FD will evaluate system performance by measuring first due unit performance at the 90th percentile quarterly and annually. In addition, the Agency will evaluate first due performance by each individual fire station demand zone and by program area. Measures for the ERF by each program area, fire station demand zone, and risk category will be evaluated annually. Annual reviews will be conducted in February of each year regarding the previous year. All response performance monitoring will exclusively evaluate emergency responses.

The Compliance Team will determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the system performance annually and make recommendations for system adjustments to the Fire Chief. Finally, the Agency will annually update and evaluate the risk assessment matrices for relevancy and changes in community risk.

Ultimately, it is recommended that outcome measures are adopted and serve as the primary evaluation tool and that the traditional performance objectives and measures presented previously are utilized primarily as a management tool. In this manner, the Agency will not be overly sensitized to incremental changes in performance criteria if the outcomes continue to be met.
182 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 171 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Compliance Verification Reporting
The Compliance Team will communicate results of the period evaluations to the Fire Chief.

The Fire Chief will disseminate the quarterly and annual results and any system adjustments in a timely manner so that both performance measurement and continuous improvement becomes part of the organization’s culture. All performance and risk measures will be reported through the Fire Chief to the three City Councils and made available to the community annually.

Constant Improvement Strategy
The Agency utilizes the following conceptual model to facilitate both compliance and continuous improvement.

Figure 87: Continuous Improvement and Compliance Model
Review
Performance
Measures and SOC
Evaluate Current
Performance
Identify
Opportunities for
Improvement
Design and
Communicate
New Elements
Monitor Desired
Performance
Make System
Adjustments
183 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 172 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021

OVERALL EVALUATION, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Evaluation
The overall evaluation is the final component of the SOC process. As a risk-based process that incorporates risk, mitigation, and outcomes measures, the Agency leadership can more easily discuss service levels, outcomes, and the associated cost allocations based on community risk.

Overall, DMR, ENC, SOL FD is performing well within the current system. The community enjoys high-quality services from a professional and well-trained Department. Predominantly, the Agency’s distribution and concentration delivery models are appropriately aligned with the community’s unique risks but are challenged to meet growing demands and to maintain service levels with challenging topography, narrowing streets, increase in regulation and other factors that hinder performance over time. The following observations and recommendations are being brought forward as program areas the Agency could make incremental system adjustments over time to improve.

General Observations and Recommendations
Equal Service Levels Across Jurisdictional Boundaries of the JPA The service levels across the three agencies are fairly equal which is difficult to achieve for most agencies operating under a joint powers agreement. This is due in part to the spacing of fire stations, staffing levels, and standardized response matrix as well as similarities of the topography and building stock. The fire administration team has done well, given their staffing levels, to maintain equity of services across all three communities. However, Station 6 is the one area where service levels stand out as different.

Urban vs. Rural Service Levels
A review of individual station/unit performance shows fairly equal performance across the jurisdiction except for Station 6. Due to the more rural aspects of the area it serves, it has a slightly lower demand for service as compared to the other stations but has the highest potential population growth rate expected for the period of 2019 to 2024. Since the station is averaged into the balance of jurisdictional performance, it will usually be the outlier in meeting benchmark performance measurement now with the likelihood of more divergence over time.
184 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 173 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Station 6 Factors different from other Stations:
• The station/unit is staffed with fewer firefighters per day (two versus three). • The station is staffed with a patrol unit as opposed to an ISO-compliant fire engine (Agency does not receive ISO credit for the patrol unit). • It protects a large geographic area.
• It has a population density of less the 1,000 people per square mile, which qualifies it as Rural.
• It has a road network that requires longer travel times due to topography and street layout. It has limited ability to cover the response area within 6 minutes of travel time, and still unable to cover it all at 10 minutes.

In summary, the level of service provided by Station 6 is not the same for residents serviced by the station, especially for properties north and east of the station.

The Agency should consider adopting a rural level of service matrix for planning areas with less than 1,000 people per square mile; Station 6 service area. This would include a travel time goal of 8 to 10 minutes (versus 6 minutes) for a total response time of 11 to 13 minutes (benchmark). By providing this bifurcation of service levels, it will help refine the difference for rural residence so there is no expectation for an urban level of service.

Examples of Rural Benchmark and Baseline Performance Statements if the Agency decides to adopt such a standard:

Fire Suppression Services Program – Rural Benchmark
For 90% of all priority structure fire incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of two personnel, within 10 minutes total response time. The first-due unit shall be capable of initiating a rescue, or advancing a first attack line, or providing basic life support for victims (only one task at a time).

For 90% of all priority moderate-risk structure fire incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 12 personnel, shall arrive within 12 minutes total response time. The ERF shall be capable of preventing further escalation of the fire incident.

For 90% of all priority high-risk structure fire incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 18 personnel, shall arrive within 14 minutes total response time. The ERF shall be capable of preventing further escalation of the fire incident.
185 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 174 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Fire Suppression Services Program – Rural Baseline
For 90% of all priority structure fire incidents, the first-due unit shall arrive, with a minimum of two personnel, within 12 minutes total response time. The first-due unit shall be capable of initiating a rescue, or advancing a first attack line, or providing basic life support for victims (only one task at a time).

For 90% of all priority moderate-risk structure fire incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 12 personnel, shall arrive within 14 minutes total response time. The ERF shall be capable of preventing further escalation of the fire incident.

For 90% of all priority high-risk structure fire incidents, the ERF, with a minimum of 18 personnel, shall arrive within 16 minutes total response time. The ERF shall be capable of preventing further escalation of the fire incident.

The Agency should consider upgrading the fire apparatus to an ISO recognized triple combination pumper and upstaff to a minimum of three per day. The Agency is already funding over 65% of the total annual cost of an ISO recognized level of service which should provide downward pressure on fire insurance premiums for the residential and commercial property owners in the area, improve fire and EMS outcomes, and standardize fire scene operations.

Data
It should be noted that there are a few areas where the Agency is doing exceptionally well.

The importance of rapid and accurate 911 call handling cannot be overstated. The North County Dispatch Center is providing 911 call handling within 1 minute and 12 seconds (90% - all call types), which falls well within industry best practices. Very few 911 centers are providing this level of performance on a consistent basis.

Also, of importance is to note the turnout time performance by the Firefighters. Turnout time is one of the least expensive efficiencies a fire agency can impact when overall response times are lacking. In the case of this Agency, the Firefighters are turning out at 1 minute and 48 seconds (90% - all call types), which is within the range of best practices amongst comparable fire agencies. This is a contributing factor to the equity of service across the three Cities.

One area of improvement is the Agency’s need to track some additional data for outcome measurements. The evaluation of performance-related data was restricted to calendar year 2019. A more reliable analysis will be made available as the Agency populates data over subsequent years.
186 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 175 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Reliability
As previously presented, the reliability of the distribution model is a factor of how often the response model is available and able to respond to the call within the assigned demand zone.

If at least one unit from the first due station is able to respond to a call, we consider the station is able to response to the call within the assigned demand zone. However, a combination of closest unit dispatching and the lack of station zone specific data in CAD, the typical station reliability measure is outdated and lacks sufficient data to be calculated.

The origins of station reliability were a surrogate measure for the assumption that the system design had already determined the closest unit to all calls by the station location schema. In today’s environment, a surrogate assumption may no longer be appropriate when actual data can replace the assumption. Finally, the performance is the better measure as it discounts who provided the service, but rather that the service was provided within the desired performance. Therefore, utilizing an analysis of the sensitivity of unit drawdown on response time capabilities may be helpful. However, the ultimate measure is to ensure that the 90th percentile desired performance is realized and disregard who provided the service.

Outcome Measures
The Agency should start tracking more closely the percentage fire damage to structures within their NFIRS reporting system. Over time, tracking percentage of fire damage will be a more reliable method of measuring outcomes as other modifications to the system are made (i.e., did the percentage of fires stopped at room of origin improve with additional staffing, upgraded fire apparatus, increase in public education outreach, improved fire inspection efforts, etc.).

Validation of Agency Critical Task Analysis
The Agency should consider validating its critical task analysis, especially in terms of ERF capabilities. In short, the Agency has sufficient data to show arrival times for all the different call types it responds to but is unable to demonstrate the ability to complete the estimated criticaltasks within a reasonable period of time after arrival. A process used by most agencies includes a series of “practice runs” in a training environment using different crews from different shifts to measure how long, on average, it takes for a typical crew to complete the critical tasks. The Agency can then look back at the last few historical “working fires” and analyze time stamps (usually via listening to the radio traffic) for the crews to complete the critical tasks (e.g., water on fire, primary search completed, fire under control) on actual fires. 187 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 176 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
This process will ensure that the Agency can perform beyond just response times and identify performance gaps that can be addressed with additional training or updating equipment. 188 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 177 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Attachment A
Data Report
189 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 178 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Attachment B
GIS Report
190 February 22, 2022 Item 08
191 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments   Page    © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Analysis         October 2021 October 2021

MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT

Del Mar, Encinitas and Solana Beach Fire Departments
Encinitas, CA
Prepared by:

FITCH & ASSOCIATES, LLC
2901 Williamsburg Terrace #G    Platte City    Missouri    64079 816.431.2600    www.fitchassoc.com
192 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page i © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEL MAR, ENCINITAS and SOLANA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENTS
Management/Administrative Assessment
Executive Summary____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Specific Recommendations ____________________________________________________________________ 1 Strategic Recommendations ___________________________________________________________________ 2 BACKGROUND ________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Exhibit 1 ‐ Cost Allocation by Agency for FY 2020‐2021____________________________________________ 4 PROJECT SCOPE _______________________________________________________________________________ 7 PROJECT APPROACH _________________________________________________________________________ 7 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ____________________________________________________________ 8 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ___________________________________________________________________ 8 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ________________________________________________________________ 12 STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________________________________ 21 APPENDIX A:  FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
193 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments   Page 1 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Analysis         October 2021 Executive Summary
Fitch and Associates, LLC (FITCH) was retained by the Del Mar, Encinitas and Solana Beach Fire Departments in August 2019 to develop a Standards of Cover document and a management/administrative assessment.  The FITCH Team came on‐site in January 2020 to initiate several in‐person meetings and interviews with Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach employees related to the two projects.

FITCH used a variety of techniques in completing this analysis including one‐on‐one, phone and virtual interviews, as well as document review, comparable agency research and financial analysis.  In total, FITCH conducted approximately seventeen (17) interviews with executive staff members, senior managers, office staff, representatives from the various fire department labor associations, a city manager, and the Fire Chief.

At the conclusion of the analysis, FITCH made eleven (11) recommendations for improving efficiency and effectiveness/or reducing risk to the combined agencies through the cooperative fire management services arrangement.   All recommendations were subcategorized as either a Specific Recommendation or a Strategic Recommendation.  In this report, Specific Recommendations are projects or efforts with a narrow and objectively measurable outcome with usually a shorter implementation period.   Strategic Recommendations are considered broader in nature, with outcomes that are more difficult to quantify fully but generally considered to result in a positive impact on the organization over time.

Specific Recommendations
Recommendation #1:
 Emergency Preparedness Program – Provide program‐level span of control assistance to the Senior Management Analyst or hire an Emergency Management specialist for all three cities
Recommendation #2:
 Provide program‐level span of control assistance to the Administrative Battalion Chief Recommendation #3:
 Provide program‐level span of control to the Deputy Fire Chief Recommendation #4:
 Refine the Fire Prevention Inspection Program
194 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 2 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 Recommendation #5:
 Conduct an assessment of the agency’s culture in regard to diversity, equity, and inclusivity in the workplace
Recommendation #6:
 Develop an expanded/more efficient internal communication strategy from the Fire Chief’s office
Recommendation #7:
 Develop a Community‐Driven Strategic Plan
Strategic Recommendations
Recommendation #8:
 Explore Accreditation through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) Recommendation #9:
 Implement strategies to standardize administrative processes between the three agencies
Recommendation #10:
 Explore the use of fire prevention inspection fees to encourage efficiency in enforcement and financial sustainability for the program Recommendation #11:
 Explore the feasibility of assigning all DMR and SOL fire apparatus repairs and maintenance to the ENC repair facility
195 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 3 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021

BACKGROUND
DMR, ENC, SOL FD is a full‐service fire and rescue department serving the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach.   These services include fire protection, emergency response, medical aid, fire prevention, disaster preparedness, search and rescue, and community education.   Lifeguard services for the City of Encinitas are also managed by the fire department.  Lifeguard services for the cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach are not under fire department control and are managed as separate departments within those two cities.

All three cities are beach communities in the northwestern corner of San Diego County, California.   They are adjacent to the cities of Carlsbad, San Diego, and the community of Rancho Santa Fe.

DMR, ENC, SOL FD has 101 full‐time employees and five divisions: Fire Operations and Support Services, Fire Administration, Loss Prevention and Planning (Fire Prevention), Disaster Preparedness, and Marine Safety Services (for Encinitas).  The Department operates six fire stations in Encinitas, one fire station in Del Mar, and one fire station (two crews on duty) in Solana Beach.  The executive management team is responsible for overseeing the combined jurisdiction of approximately 25 square miles, with nine companies from eightfire stations and protecting a population of approximately 80,000.

Since October 2009, the City of Encinitas has operated under a cooperative fire management services agreement and shares the cost and services of seniorfire management personnel with the Cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach.  Encinitas provides operational oversightfor emergency services in Solana Beach and Del Mar, including day‐to‐day management of fire department operations, training, support services, disaster preparedness, and fire prevention support.  The cooperative fire management services agreement is updated periodically with the most recent amendment signed in July 2019.  The three agencies are considered in their totality for this report and hereto referred generically as Department or Agency.

The financial contribution between the three cities is comprised of a complex formula that is calculated annually.   Fees are the sum of total actual costs of salaries and benefits for all personnel providing shared fire management services.  Apportionment is calculated using the following formula:10% equally shared, 20% by population, 20% by area served, 20% by the number of annual calls for service, 30% by the number of fire suppression personnel.  Administrative costs and cost allocations from other departments are also factored in the percentage allocation.
196 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 4 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 Exhibit 1 ‐ Cost Allocation by Agency for FY 2020‐2021
The DMR, ENC, SOL FD’s administrative staff consists of six (6) chief officers, one (1) fire marshal, and four (4) administrative support positions with additional EMS support provided through the county EMS transport provider (AMR).  The Fire Chief is the Department Head for all three agencies and coordinates with the city manager of each respective city, although the city manager for the City of Encinitas has final supervisory authority over the Fire Chief.  The cooperative fire management services agreement is governed by two (2) council members from each agency, and the three (3) city managers.

197 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 5 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 Figure 1 – Organizational Chart
The DMR, ENC, SOL FD has some interest in possibly pursuing fire service accreditation through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI); but for now, they are primarily focused on the underlying practices associated with the accreditation process that includes self‐assessment, data analysis, the establishment of service level goals and the other 198 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 6 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 processes necessary to ensure the agency maintains a system of constant monitoring and continuous improvement.

One of the more complex aspects of the process is the establishment of service‐level goals for deployment and emergency response.  This information, once analyzed and approved by the governing body orthe city managers, is typically referred to as a Standards of Cover(SOC).

In August 2019, the DMR, ENC, SOL FD contracted with FITCH to guide them in the development of their Standards of Cover document as well as a Management/Administrative Assessment.
199 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 7 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021

PROJECT SCOPE
FITCH conducted a Management/Administrative Assessment of the DMR, ENC, SOL FD that resulted in eleven (11) recommendations for improving efficiency and effectiveness/or reducing risk to the combined agencies through the cooperative fire management services arrangement.   All recommendations were subcategorized as either a Specific Recommendation or a Strategic Recommendation.  In this report, Specific Recommendations are projects or efforts with a narrow and objectively measurable outcome and usually a shorter implementation period.   Strategic Recommendations are considered broader in nature, with outcomes that are more difficult to quantify fully but generally considered to result in a positive impact on the organization over time.

PROJECT APPROACH
FITCH used a variety of techniques in completing this study including one‐on‐one interviews while onsite, virtual interviews, and document reviews.  In total, FITCH conducted seventeen (17) individual interviews (both in‐person and virtually) with executive staff members, senior managers, office staff, representatives from the various fire department labor associations, a city manager, and the Fire Chief.

The purpose of the interviews was to gather information on each position within DMR, ENC, SOL FD administration, their duties, the ratio of workload within and outside of their job description, and to determine areas of responsibility where employees are not able to meet all assignments.  Additional open‐ended questions were used to solicit ideas for and including, (but are not limited to) revenue enhancements, expenditure controls, process efficiencies, and other opportunities and or constraints for improving the efficiency within their job assignments.

Examples of Questions:
 What percentage of your total work time is spent on duties outside of your job description? (Acknowledging to the employee that every organization needs employees to work somewhat outside the lines from time to time)
 Of the percentage of time spent on duties outside of your job description, what type of work are you responsible for and who do you report to for clarification, if needed?  What projects or work assignments are not getting done and what are contributing factors, if any?
 What work assignments, if any, are beyond your skill set?  What improvements would you implement if you could?
200 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 8 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Without conducting extensive time‐motion studies for each administrative position, the assumption is made that each employee is making an honest and best estimate when answering interview questions regarding their workloads, job challenges, and improvement ideas.   The scope of work for this project is limited to the management/administrative functions within the DMR, ENC, SOL FD; however, a major component of analyzing the administrative functions required us to explore the budget (revenues and expenditures) as a whole, which has implications into other areas possibly outside the originally intended scope.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Even though the DMR, ENC, SOL FD has responsibility for over 100 employees (with the majority of employees working a 56‐hour/3 platoon shift system), the culture is “family‐like” with everyone knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the organization as a whole.

Administrative staff seems to maintain a “can‐do” attitude even when faced with a complex and growing workload.  Working outside of their job description is not unusual and there is a sense of ownership in each project they take on.  This provides the organization with the ability to be highly flexible and adaptable.  The administrative staff highly respects the Fire Chief and the overall vision but fear letting the chief down, so they put in many extra hours beyond what is expected.

Because of the cooperative services arrangement, DMR, ENC, SOL FD is tasked with taking the lead role in all the day‐to‐day responsibilities as well as many regional activities such as communications, mutual aid coordination, training, special teams, etc.  The main overarching theme from almost every respondent was the time‐consuming nature of coordinating three different agencies that still maintain many of their respective, yet different, methods of conducting business.  For example, to make a mid‐ to large‐value purchase, accept a grant, repair a fire apparatus, repair a fire station, etc., it might take three separate processes to complete.   Even though there have been great strides made towards improving standardization,the nuances between the three cities lowers the quantity of work employees are able to provide in a given period of time.

Another aspect of this theme is the tenuous balance between a few key employees and the functionality of the organization.  The current structure of fire administration is fairly typical of a California municipal fire agency, however, due to the additional workload of coordinating three different cities, the administrative support structure, in particular the number of chief fire officers, is 30% below the comparable agency average.  The DMR, ENC, SOL FD has six (6) chief officers whereas the list of comparable agencies has an average of nine (9).  (Compare Figure 1 and Table 1)  This is notto say that additional civilian support staff is not a viable option 201 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 9 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 to address many of the non‐operational needs of the agency, however, in smaller agencies there is a balance between lower cost civilian positions and the need to cover operational needs (command of large‐scale events, coverage for chiefs on leave, etc.), whereas the use of chief officers usually provides the much‐needed flexibility for both administrative and operational needs.

The DMR, ENC, SOL FD makes highly efficient use of the chief officers and civilian staff assigned to fire administration, but this appears to be accomplished due to the highly dedicated staff in a few key positions.  Key staff members report they routinely commit 55 to 65 hours per week in order to accomplish the highest priority assignments and still report feeling bad that many of the other lower‐priority assignments are not getting done properly.

This is a testament to the quality of employees and culture within fire administration, however, these factors also put the agency in a very precarious position.   Just like the operational assessment within the standards of cover, this analysis includes a review of the balance between efficiency and resiliency.  The more efficient an agency becomes, the less resilient it will be in overcoming surges in service demand, large‐scale incidents and other crisis events.   Fire administration must maintain a similar balance in terms of completing critical work assignments with sufficient attention to detail to avoid liability or adverse consequences yet have sufficient time to be proactive and creative in problem‐solving so as to limit or mitigate the risk from the start.  Administratively speaking, in short, if the Deputy Fire Chief, the Administrative Battalion Chief, or the Senior Management Analyst positions were to suffer a long‐term absence (illness, retirement, etc.) the DMR, ENC, SOL FD would be in serious peril in terms of the completion of time‐sensitive essential functions.

A review of comparable fire agencies demonstrates a more well‐balanced span of control in the various administrative functional areas for agencies with complexities similar to that of DMR, ENC, SOL FD and its cooperative services agreements.  (See Appendix A and Table 2) Comparable agencies were identified and analyzed by using the following criteria:
 Has a similar administrative “cooperative services” arrangement with adjacent jurisdictions (similar administrative complexity)
 Provides similar services (fire, EMS, fire prevention, hazardous material response, technical rescue, etc.)
 Similar built‐out environment (primarily residential and light commercial)  Preferably near the coast

202 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 10 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 Table 1 – List of Comparable Fire Agencies

Population Protected
General Fund Operating Budget
Calls for Service
Per Capita Expenditure
Full Time Employees
Minimum Daily Staffing
Chief Officers
ISO Rating (1 is best)
# of Fire Stations

Peer Agency
Central Fire District of
Santa Cruz County (Aptos,
Capitola, La Selva Beach
Live Oak, Rio Del Mar,
Soquel)
90,000 $35,401,300   8,072 $393.35   120 23 9 2 7
North County Fire
Authority (Brisbane, Daly
City, Pacifica)
185,000 $39,918,200   10,996 $215.77   105 26 11 3 8
Brea/Fullerton Fire Depts. 182,500 $40,176,700   20,000 $220.15   125 39 8 2 10 Heartland Fire & Rescue (El
Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon
Grove)
186,000 $42,900,000   22,000 $230.65   144 31 8 1 8
San Mateo Consolidated
(Belmont, Foster City, San
Mateo)
165,400 $43,895,500   12,800 $265.39   154 39 9 2 9
Peer Agency Average 161,780 $40,458,340 14,774 $265.06 130 32 9 2 8 Del Mar, Encinitas
and Solana Beach Fire
Depts.
80,500 $23,277,7001   10,200 $289.16   1012 27 6 23   8

1 ENC budget, including Cooperative Services revenue ‐ minus ENC marine safety program 2 Includes 6 FTE’s from ENC marine safety program not counted in budget but used here to denote the additional administrative workload required to supervise the program and staff 3 City of Solana Beach is ISO Class 1 203 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 11 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 Table 2 List of Comparable Fire Agencies and their Administrative Positions

Chief Officer Dedicated to Training
Training Captain(s)
Chief Officer Dedicated to
Administration
Member Dedicated to Logistics
Chief Officer Dedicated to
Operations
Chief Officer Dedicated to
Prevention/CRR
Member Dedicated to Emergency
Management

Peer Agency
Brea/Fullerton Fire Depts. 1 0 0.54 1 1 0.5 1
Central Fire District of Santa
Cruz County (Aptos, Capitola,
La Selva Beach Live Oak, Rio
Del Mar, Soquel)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Heartland Fire & Rescue (El
Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove) 1 0 0.95 1 1 1 16
North County Fire Authority
(Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica) 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.5
San Mateo Consolidated
(Belmont, Foster City, San
Mateo)
27 0 1 18 1 1 1
Peer Agency Average 1.2 0.8 0.9 1 1 0.9 0.9
Del Mar, Encinitas and Solana
Beach Fire Depts. 0.89 0 0.710 0 0.5 1 0.0111

4 Deputy Chief of Admin and Prevention 5 Division Chief of Admin and EMS 6 Data provided by DMR, ENC, SOL FD staff.  Three of the 11 cities share one emergency manager through the cooperative services agreement with Heartland Fire & Rescue 7 Shares large training staff between the three agencies 8 Civilian facilities and fleet manager 9 Admin Battalion Chief spends 80% of time on Training Program and 20% on Admin 10 Deputy Fire Chief spends 50% of time on Admin and 50% on Operations 11 Senior Management Analyst spends less than 1% of time on Emergency Management 204 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 12 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 The Fire Chief has a long‐term vision of what the organization needs to accomplish in terms of remaining viable and effective.  This vision includes validating objective measurement of services levels, maintaining a standards of cover document, exploring efficiencies through this management/administrative analysis, strengthening the reputation of the DMR, ENC, SOL FD with its contract cities, and exploring fire service accreditation.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1:
 Emergency Preparedness Program – Provide program‐level span of control assistance to the Senior Management Analyst or hire an Emergency Management specialist for all three cities.

The DMR, ENC, SOL FD is responsible for providing Emergency Management program coordination for the City of Encinitas as well as for the cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach under the cooperative services agreement.   Emergency management/preparedness is an important program for jurisdictions to ensure minimum requirements are met.  There are a number of reasons, especially for Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach; 1. Southern California has a long history of significant, large‐scale disasters, both natural and human‐caused; so, readiness is critical.  2. Lack of proper planning can create an ineffective response to an event when it happens, delaying critical assistance.   3. Agencies that cannot demonstrate compliance with minimum requirements for their emergency preparedness program can be subject to lower reimbursement from state and federal disaster assistance programs, which could result in the loss of millions of dollars depending on the scope and duration of events, or the loss of grant funding opportunities for mitigation efforts.

Currently, the emergency management program is coordinated by the Senior Management Analyst, a non‐safety position designated to assist the Fire Chief with general coordination of the administrative functions of the agency.  The Senior Management Analyst reports that she is challenged to complete all her day‐to‐day assignments due to the need to ensure all assignments comply with various requirements of the three respective cities under the cooperative services agreement, i.e., many assignments must be done three times, three different ways, reviewed by three city managers and three city attorneys.   The Senior Management Analyst also reports that she routinely works over 40 hours per week to maintain her current workload yet feels like she is letting the organization down by not being able to properly address her emergency management responsibilities.  Due to the size and complexity of the emergency management program, it must be systematically set aside for higher priority assignments.  This is typically not a problem if this is an occasional occurrence, 205 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 13 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 but the Senior Management Analyst reports she can barely dedicate any hours to the program, so the program is significantly behind schedule.

The Senior Management Analyst also reports that emergency management is a complex assignment that, to do it correctly, probably needs 10 to 20 hours per week of attention between the high‐level administrative responsibilities, such as; developing and maintaining the Emergency Operations Plan, Continuity of Operations plan, the Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plans, conducting tabletop and full‐scale exercises, coordinating with other local and county‐ level emergency management programs; and the lower‐level program needs, such as maintaining the agency’s Emergency Operations Center and its technological/logistical needs.

The agency’s Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program also falls under emergency management but is primarily coordinated by the Administrative Battalion Chief.

An analysis of 18 cities within San Diego County reveals 11 cities have full‐time/dedicated emergency managers12, and a review of comparable fire agencies shows the majority employ a dedicated person to their emergency management programs (See Table 2).  Therefore, it is recommended the DMR, ENC, SOL FD consider hiring a full‐time emergency manager that could be shared between the three cities, similar to other agencies within San Diego County and throughout California.

Alternative options include reassigning the Emergency Management program to another internal employee that may have the administrative capacity to handle the program and hire a part‐time civilian coordinator to help with the workload.   There is, however, usually additional costs associated with the training of an internal employee not already well‐versed in emergency management, especially if they are classified as a “safety employee” due to the higher wage and benefit costs.

Recommendation #2:
 Provide program‐level span of control assistance to the Administrative Battalion Chief The Administrative Battalion Chief has a very broad array of responsibilities including coordinating all operational related training, agency logistical support, new fire apparatus design, safety program, wellness program, recruitment, promotional testing, new‐hire academy training, coordination of the Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT), operational battalion duty coverage at times, as well as various other duties in support of fire

12 Data provided by DMR, ENC, SOL FD staff.  Three of the 11 cities share one emergency manager through the cooperative services agreement with Heartland Fire & Rescue 206 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 14 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 administration.   The Administrative Battalion Chief reports that he spends more than 80 percent of his time with the training program alone, with the rest of the time spread amongst the other list of duties.  The Administrative Battalion Chief has no direct report subordinates but relies heavily on delegation to the operational staff or outsourcing to complete assignments.  Assistance from the operational staff is subject to their willingness to assume additional projects and assignments.   When there is no “volunteer” available, the Administrative Battalion Chief might be required to be “hands‐on” with any of these assignments.   The Administrative Battalion Chief also reports that he routinely works an average of 60 to 65 hours per week to maintain his current workload yet feels like he is letting the organization down by not being able to address all areas of responsibilities with a proper level of quality.

A review of comparable agencies shows the majority employ dedicated personnel to administrative, logistical, operational, prevention, training and emergency management programs (See Table 2).

It is recommended the DMR, ENC, SOL FD provide some program‐level span of control assistance to the Administrative Battalion Chief.   A few suggested solutions include hire/assign a civilian logistics manager or assign a full‐time training officer (Captain) to work under the Administrative Battalion Chief.  The Administrative Battalion Chief has distinct skill sets in the area of new fire apparatus design so it would not be recommended to reassign this particular function until a suitable replacement could be found and properly trained/experienced.

Recommendation #3:
 Provide program‐level span of control to the Deputy Fire Chief The Deputy Fire Chief has a very broad array of responsibilities including; coordinating the operations division (this include the majority of DMR, ENC, SOL FD staffing), budget, human resources, risk management, emergency medical (shared with private ambulance service representative), and facility/apparatus maintenance programs, emergency management (shared with the Senior Management Analyst), operational area coordination, assisting the fire chief with multiple weekly and monthly meetings between the respective staffs of the three cooperating cities, operational battalion duty coverage attimes, as well as various other duties in support of fire administration.  The Deputy Fire Chief has three direct reports (shift battalion chiefs) but, as second‐in‐command underthe fire chief, has authority over all aspects of the Department (See Figure 1) The Deputy Fire Chief also reports that he routinely works an average of 65 to 70 hours per week to maintain his current workload yet feels like he is 207 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 15 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 letting the organization down by not being able to address all areas of responsibilities with a proper level of quality.

An analysis of program and division level positions in comparable agencies (See Table 2)reveal the average staffing level of 6.7 positions (chief officers or program managers, excluding fire chief) to carry out the complex responsibilities of blended organizations similar to that of DMR, ENC and SOL.  In comparison, ENC is attempting to accomplish the same work with essentially only 3 positions (1 Deputy Fire Chief, 1 Administrative Battalion Chief and 1 Senior Management Analyst).

As opposed to Specific Recommendations 1 and 2 regarding separating program responsibilities from the employees to help them with their workload, there is a benefit to having the Deputy Fire Chief oversee a broad array of program areas so as to ensure they are all in alignment with the overall agency mission and outcomes.  The key distinction is to keep program oversight as broad as possible but provide delegation and assistance within the program areas.   As an example, the Deputy Fire Chief might be tied up for many hours coordinating facility maintenance contracts, in triplicate.  The same must be done for budget, grants, HR, and other administrative duties.

Due to the complexity of the shared services arrangement between the three agencies, it is recommended the agency consider adding a second Deputy Fire Chief position and separate organizational responsibilities between Operations and Administrations.   This will provide some program‐level span of controlrelief and better align the agency for succession planning.

Alternative solutions include enacting a number of recommendations related to the Administrative Battalion Chief (See Recommendation #2), elevate the Administrative Battalion Chief to assist with more of the duties assigned to the Deputy Fire Chief, and either hire/assign a civilian logistics manager or assign a full‐time training officer (Captain) to work under the Administrative Battalion Chief.

Recommendation #4:
 Refine the Fire Prevention Inspection Program
The current staffing levels within the fire prevention bureau are adequate and efficientforthe size and complexity of the jurisdiction, however, the fire prevention bureau still has a few challenges.  The main challenge falls underthe category of standardization between the three cities; a common theme throughout this report.   The DMR, ENC, SOL FD has made great strides in standardizing many processes within the bureau, such as aligning fire codes and 208 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 16 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 their adoption cycle (currently the 2018 International Fire Code and 2019 California Fire Code), they have transitioned to a 100% electronic plan review system, aligned master fee schedules, etc.  However, the bureau still has several facets of the program that are not yet aligned, such as; street and electric gate standards, how follow‐up code enforcement is carried out, some fire prevention staff members are dedicated to working solely within their “home” jurisdiction so there is limited flexibility in balancing workload between the three respective cities.  These challenges hinder the ability of the bureau to carry out its mission effectively.

The recommended “refinement” of the fire prevention program essentially falls in two key areas.  1. Continue to seek standardization of codes, processes, systems, and practices (see Strategic Recommendation 9).  2. Refine the annual occupancy inspection process to better align resources to mitigation of risk to the communities served with the current staffing configuration.

Currently, the fire prevention bureau’s goal is to inspect 100% of “inspectable occupancies” annually.  Due to the challenges mentioned prior, the bureau is capable of inspecting 100% of the California State Fire Marshal’s Office – mandated occupancies13, however, it is only able to inspect about 90% of the other occupancies within the three cities.   This 10% gap is not currently triaged, so a high‐risk occupancy has the same chance of missing an annual inspection as a low‐risk occupancy.   A missing inspection, in this case, is not necessarily completely missed, as it might be picked up within weeks or months of its planned inspection cycle, but the risk can be significantly different between a high‐risk and a low‐risk occupancy experiencing a delay in receiving a fire/life safety inspection.  Therefore, it is recommended the fire prevention bureau assess all their inspectable occupancies, classify them into three categories and adopt the following sample criteria for inspection cycles:
 Inspect 100% of high‐risk occupancies annually (California mandated occupancies, plus i.e., any building with a commercial fire protection system, assemblies, large or multi‐story commercial, industrial, etc.)
 Inspect 100% of medium‐risk occupancies every two years (i.e., medium office buildings, strip malls, etc.)
 Inspect 100% of low‐risk occupancies every three years (small office buildings, stand‐alone businesses, drive‐thru kiosks, etc.)
The proposal of these new inspection categories and cycles is to ensure that the highest risk occupancies are inspected annually and to avoid any “gaps” in the program since the lower risk occupancies are still inspected but at an interval that is within the capabilities of the

13 California Health & Safety Code – 13145 & 13146
209 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 17 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 current staffing configuration of the bureau yet does not put the jurisdictions at any unreasonable risk.   The proposed inspection categories are just an example.   The fire prevention bureau can assess the risk of the different types of occupancies within the jurisdiction and modify as needed to provide the highest level of mitigation commensurate with staffing, capabilities, and community expectations.

Recommendation #5:
 Conduct an assessment of the agency’s culture in regard to diversity, equity, and inclusivity in the workplace
There are many areas of the budget where substantial funding is being spent but the money has a nexus to an outcome.  For example, fair pay and benefits might help attract and retain good employees, and those employees provide a service that results in a positive outcome for the community (rapid response, lower insurance rates, high cardiac survival rate, low urban blight, etc.).  However, a few areas of risk create a tremendous draw on the budget with little to no value to the community, examples include but are not limited to: instances of bad employee behavior, investigations, discipline, grievances, lawsuits, and injury.  An example of the legal exposure related to these examples can be illustrated with a few interesting facts.

In 2019, there was 27 career firefighter line‐of‐duty deaths in the U.S.14; however, there were literally hundreds of agencies thrust into litigation due to employee behaviors, unprofessional interactions, and/or lack of meaningful preventative training.15 In terms of cost to the agencies involved, it is difficult to fully measure the impacts, but a key indicator is the comparison between firefighter line‐of‐duty deaths and instances of firefighter malfeasance.  The trend for firefighter line‐of‐duty deaths has stayed fairly steady over the past decade but impacts due to firefighter malfeasance and subsequent litigation continues to grow at an alarming rate.  When we look at the amount of funding that fire agencies dedicate to firefighter training for operational hazards, then compare that to the funding dedicated to shielding the agency from a multi‐million‐dollar legal challenge (usually caused by a disconnect between the agency’s policies and a culture of indifference within the workplace) we see the disproportionate funding and the unfortunate results that follow.

The assessment of the Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach Fire Departments did not reveal any explicit or above‐average problem in the area of culture.  In fact, fire administration has probably addressed this better than most agencies as they have invested in agency‐wide

14 U.S. Fire Administration – Career firefighter fatalities for 2019 15 Career Survival Group – www.careersurvivalgroup.com 210 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 18 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 training above and beyond the traditional default method of assigning online computer‐based training to meet the bare minimum of requirements.  However, the best practice today is to assess the culture so that blind spots can be revealed and addressed over time.  There are some recognized benchmark measurements that can be incorporated as objective measurements for this type of program.   They are usually incorporated into the strategic planning process (See Specific Recommendation 7) to ensure transparency and accountability.  The bottom line is the process is designed to ensure ongoing public trust.

Itis,therefore,recommended the DMR, ENC, SOL FD conduct an assessment ofthe workplace culture in regard to diversity, equity and inclusivity.  Such assessments can be completed by any number of subject matter experts that specialize in this field.  Typical assessments for any agency similar to DMR, ENC, SOL FD might cost between $10,000 and $20,000.  Findings can be directed by and to the agency’s legal representative to ensure confidentiality.  The Fire Chief and administrative staff can then use the findings to refine their training and other resources to address the areas of concern over time, thus reducing the risk of litigation to the agency and the contract cities.  This strategy can also be valuable in demonstrating to the employees, elected officials, and the community‐at‐large the DMR, ENC, SOL FD is taking actionable steps to ensure the workplace culture is open and fair to all.

Recommendation #6:
 Develop an expanded/more efficient internal communication strategy from the Fire Chief’s office
A lack of meaningful communication within the organization is a common issue brought up by various respondents, but also one of the most commonly cited problems in almost every organization.  It is not unique to the DMR, ENC, SOL FD but is nonetheless an area that can be improved with a healthy return on investment once implemented.  It is a basic function of human nature to want to know the future and employees will carry this expectation into the workplace.  The Fire Chief and the Deputy Fire Chief carry the most influence and weight because they provide information that has not been filtered through multiple layers of the organization, and there is a perception they have a greater level of accountability for the accuracy of the information provided (no plausible deniability).

However, communication can also be one of the biggest consumers of time for the chiefs when they take time to "make the rounds" to each station/crew/shift, craft memos, or send out email updates.   However, there is likely no better system in place than face‐to‐face interaction, so the best answer seems to be a balance between the different systems of 211 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 19 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 communication to leverage as much information as possible without overtaxing the chief officers.

The chiefs already make a concerted effort to get "face time" with the crews.  The process can now be followed up with the expanded use of the agency’s current video conferencing system (Zoom).  One of the positive aspects of the recent pandemic is most people are now very well versed in video conferencing and is now more widely accepted.

Therefore, it is recommended the Fire Chief and/or Deputy Fire Chief provide a video update to the organization on a scheduled basis.  This would replace some, but not all, of the time and effort put into station rounds, thus leveraging some additional time back to the chiefs.

Many agencies use this format for getting critical information out quickly while also providing a method to get feedback from the crews so the information can be further refined to ensure the message is clear for everyone.

The key is to provide a steady source of reliable information on potentially the hottest topics in a timely manner.  This will stifle rumors and produce an increased level of trust due to the extra transparency.  This must be all be done with the recognition that the consumers of the information will never stop consuming, and the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief need to be spending time on strategic matters, as well, to keep the organization safe.

Recommendation #7:
 Develop a Community‐Driven Strategic Plan
The most progressive fire agencies have several things in common, one of them is the use of strategic planning to make sure current activities and resource allocations are all done in alignment with longer‐term goals and objectives.  The DMR, ENC, SOL FD is among one of the more professional and progressive fire agencies in the nation as it has chosen to develop a standards of cover, it’s asking for a third‐party review of its administrative programs, and its exploring fire service accreditation; however, an updated strategic plan is one of the core elements of a professional and progressive fire agency that is still pending.

The best practice is to develop a select group of community stakeholders to help provide inputinto the strategic planning process from the perspective ofthe customer.  To emphasize the importance of this strategy to the fire service as a whole, the United States Fire Administration has recently adopted a “people‐centered” focus as the first step in their 212 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 20 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 decision‐making16 model, which means the industry is embracing its responsibility to ask the customerfirst before they determine any levels of service they may be assuming the customer wants.

Granted, the council form of local government provides a level of citizen oversight, but with only a select few councilmembers, their capacity to gain meaningful feedback may not truly reflect that of the community‐at‐large.   Councilmembers are also trying to balance many different city priorities and might not always be able to dedicate the time to participate in an in‐depth exploration of the agency’s capabilities and needs.  One solution that has gained considerable credibility in local government oversite of their public safety functions is the use of community stakeholders to fill the gap.

The community stakeholder group should include a number of major segments of the community including representatives from various demographic groups, business leaders, influential citizens, perhaps a member of the media, homeowner groups, etc.   This group should be ideally ten (10) to twenty (20) representatives of the community; a number that is not too large to coordinate but large enough to provide a broad array of feedback from the customer’s perspective.

The community stakeholder group should be able to commit the time necessary to complete the whole process that could be as little as one day or several multi‐hour sessions over several days.  Some sessions could be in a classroom, or even virtual, and consist of presentations and some workshop activities.  Other sessions could include field trips to see agency facilities and equipment, meet firefighters in their work environments, and perhaps even some carefully supervised hands‐on activities allowing for experiencing first‐hand some of the challenges faced by firefighters.

Ideally, the coordination of the citizen stakeholder group activities would include the members ofthe agency’s strategic planning group (fire administration, various members from the rank and file, as well as labor).  The goal is to educate the community stakeholders to a degree higher than the average citizen so they can make informed decisions.  Then, through a facilitated process, the stakeholders would provide feedback on the levels of service they want, the scope of services valued, what items are most important to them, what items are least important to them, etc.

16 U.S. Fire Administration – Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2019‐2023 213 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 21 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 Strategic plans that are developed without customer input put agencies in danger of losing touch with what the end‐user wants, which could have negative political ramifications later on.  This recommendation provides the critical elements to the strategic planning process, along with a few additional side benefits. 1. The agency will have a group of strong advocates educating their friends and family on their inside‐view of their fire agency.  2. The agency will have a model process to screen issues from a customer’s perspective to ensure they are maintaining public trust.  3. The process can be designed in such a way as to comply with the Commission on Fire Accreditation International if the agency decides to pursue fire service accreditation (see Strategic Recommendation 8).

The fire administrative staff currently utilize a “Divisional Task List” to track assignments.  The list does not necessarily reflect the priority of the task but is a simple and effective method of tracking a project and the date it is due to be completed.  Aligning the use of the divisional task list along with the priorities derived from the strategic planning process might not increase the completion rate of tasks but should improve the return on investment in terms of outcomes that are of the most value to the community and the efficiency of the staff.

An additional benefit of completing a strategic plan is the advantage it would provide fire administrative staff in developing annual reports.   The basis of the strategic plan is to determine the outcomes the community desires.   Once outcome measurements are established, the agency can more succinctly report performance the community desires and in a way they can better understand.  The agency’s annual reports contain very important information but can be somewhat confusing to the average citizen as to what it all means to them.   Community‐driven strategic plans can answer the following questions with 5 to 7 simple graphs or charts:
 How likely is my life, or the lives of my family, going to be saved?  How much of my property will be saved (value, capabilities, can my business still operate, etc.)?
 What will be my quality of life after an event (or if the event is prevented)?  How much is it going to cost me to support, or don’t support, the fire department recommended strategies?

STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #8:
 Explore Accreditation through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) 214 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 22 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 The modern fire service continues to see a growing sense of scrutiny for how it uses the resources it receives from the community.  Efficiency and transparency will be the driving forces over the next decade.  The Fire Chief is aware of this and has expressed his interest in pursuing Accreditation through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI).

The CFAI process was originally developed in the early 1990s as a joint effort between the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA).  The IAFC's and ICMA's purpose was to develop a system by which fire agencies could be evaluated using a standard set of criteria common to all fire agencies.  Since then, the partnership has extended to the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Department of Defense.

The process starts with self‐assessment17, whereby the agency looks at all its internal processes and procedures to make sure they are meeting community expectations (11 categories with 250 performance indicators).   Then the system is evaluated using peer‐ assessors (on a five‐year cycle) to verify and validate the agency’s performance.  The process is modeled after other accreditation processes such as that for hospitals, law enforcement agencies, and educational institutions.

There were a few issues of concern brought up by various members of the agency during the interviews that did not necessarily meet the scope of this study.  However, the accreditation process, if pursued, would be a process that will continually look at all areas of concern and make sure they are addressed systematically, following best practices as generally adopted by a joint International City/County Managers Association, International Association of Fire Fighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs panel of commissioners.   It is universally recognized by all these professional associations that every organization has “blind spots”, and the successful ones will develop a system to routinely look into all areas to ensure they are making incremental improvements.  However, it is important to note that many ofthe improvement processes outline by the accreditation process does not necessarily require the agency to achieve recognition through the accreditation governing body (CFAI).

For all intents and purposes, the DMR, ENC, SOL FD can follow the best practices and implement them internally without full recognition of the commission.  The main reason for an agency seeking recognition is to give the community it serves proof from a 3rd party perspective that their best interests are being prioritized within the agency.

17 Fire and Emergency Service Self‐Assessment Manual, 9th Ed. – Center for Public Safety Excellence 215 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 23 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 Therefore, it is recommended the DMR, ENC, SOL FD explore accreditation through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International.  Once the DMR, ENC, SOL FD understands the key components to the process, a decision can be made in terms of how much of the model they wish to follow and assess the potential return on investment.

Recommendation #9:
 Implement strategies to standardize administrative processes between the three agencies
Just as it was described in the background section and within the various recommendations, navigating the diverse administrative processes between the three cities is highly time‐ consuming, especially under the current administrative staffing configuration.  It should be recognized thatitis unlikely to align all processes, procedures, codes, standards, and practices but a concerted effort to align as much as possible will leverage additional time and provide a measurable return on investment where the agency can be successful.  The balance should be between efficiency and resiliency.  The current configuration might have value in terms of cost efficiency for DMR and SOL but may not in terms of overall efficiency, nor resiliency for all three communities. This recommendation would dovetail nicely into Specific Recommendation 7 – Develop a Community‐Driven Strategic Plan.  An updated strategic plan would include an analysis of items that can be aligned and prioritized accordingly into the agency’s Divisional Task List.

Examples of items identified by staff that would benefit the agency if aligned:
 Purchasing procedures
 Supply ordering
 Apparatus design and standardization
 Facilities repair and maintenance
 Code enforcement follow‐up processes
 Gate access standards
 Street width standards
 Agenda report standardization
 Routing of agreements, agenda reports, etc.

Recommendation #10:
 Explore the use of fire prevention inspection fees to encourage efficiency in enforcement and financial sustainability for the program 216 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 24 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 The fire prevention bureau’s primary mission is to enforce the jurisdictional fire and life safety codes.  Many communities lose sight that fire and life safety codes are laws and not just best practices or guidelines.  As such, it is often challenging for all fire prevention programs to balance the rule of law with the unique needs and accommodations of the local community.

Added to this, because most fire prevention programs generate different types of revenue from sources such as plan check fees, development impact fees, community facility district fees, inspection fees, inspection fines, etc., they are often pressured to bring in sufficient revenue to be cost‐neutral.   However, anytime new fees are proposed, there is the chance of experiencing resistance from the community since they might see it as the fire prevention codes are being overly enforced to ensure a sufficient amount of revenue is generated.

The best practice is to design and adopt an inspection program that encourages safety compliance over revenue so that fees (or fines) are only implemented when the property owner refuses to comply and unnecessarily draws fire prevention resources away from other priority activities.  In short, fees or fines are only used to incentivize compliance with the law, however, fines and fees should be sufficiently high enough to adequately cover the cost of engaging in drawn‐out compliance cases, so the program is essentially funded by the non‐ compliant versus the compliant property owner.    The benefit of this type of inspection methodology is it incentivizes compliance so that staffing levels can remain as low and efficient as possible.

A proposed inspection process might adopt the following methodology:

217 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 25 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 Figure 2 – Sample Inspection Process Flow Chart
The use of any fees should be established using a recognized methodology to ensure compliance with California state law18 and that fines are commensurate with the increased level of risk the property owner is imposing on the rest of the community.  The three cities currently have adopted masterfee schedules that are routinely validated by a 3rd party.  Future master fee schedule updates could incorporate this programming into its validation process.

It is also important to note that considerable investment should be made in community outreach before such a process is proposed to the respective governing bodies.  There are many fire agencies in California with similar models, but most would also recommend a methodical approach to avoid unnecessary community misunderstandings.

Recommendation #11:
 Explore the feasibility of assigning all DMR and SOL fire apparatus repairs and maintenance to the ENC repair facility
A review of the current fire apparatus repair and maintenance program stands out as a markedly time‐consuming process for administrative staff to coordinate and potentially inefficient in terms of cost to the cooperating cities of DMR and SOL.  Depending on the apparatus, nature of the problem, or time of day, there might be four different points of contact to get the unit repaired.  Then, depending on the estimated cost of the repair for a

18 California Government Code: Title 5, Chapter 54985‐54988 218 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 26 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 DMR or SOL fire apparatus repair, the administrative staff need to coordinate with various staff members from the respective city to approve the expense.  In addition, the preventative maintenance schedule is considerably different between the three cities.  Over time, units receiving less preventative maintenance will naturally require more extensive repairs and longer “out of service” time.

A preliminary review of the ENC fleet maintenance program appears to be a viable solution.

The ENC fleet maintenance program already handles 70% of the combined fleet, has a robust preventative maintenance program that limits apparatus “out of service” times, is well‐ experienced in how to schedule preventative maintenance and routine repairs around field‐ level operational and training needs, and has a labor rate approximately 50% lower than the private vendors ($48 per hour versus $108 or $118).  Additional analysis would need to be done to ensure the enhanced preventative maintenance routine would not exceed the anticipated savings, however, the unified coordination by the ENC fleet maintenance division alone could provide substantial time savings for the administrative staff that would need to be allocated a value in the analysis.

Therefore, it is recommended the agency explore the feasibility of assigning all DMR and SOL fire apparatus repairs and maintenance to the ENC repair facility.  The analysis should include, but not be limited to, the various hourly labor rates, the transport cost for apparatus that cannot be repaired while at a fire station, the administrative staff time needed to coordinate repairs, the value of standardization of repairs, parts, use of the resource pool, and the amount of “out of service” time.
219 February 22, 2022 Item 08
City of Fort Myers Beach, FL Page 19 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Standards of Cover Study 29 March 2018

APPENDIX A
Functional
Responsibility
220 February 22, 2022 Item 08
Functional Responsibilities
Updated September 21, 2021
Fire Chief  Directors’ meetings
 Council meetings  Governance Board  North Zone Fire Chiefs  County Chiefs  Supervises Deputy Chief  Fire Prevention Supervisor  Marine Safety Supervisor Administrative Services
Division
Deputy Chief
 Operations
 Budgeting (3 agencies)  Personnel (HR, Risk)  Facilities Maintenance  Apparatus Maintenance  Equipment Maintenance  CSA-17 Operations  Zone OPs Chiefs liaison  Battalion Chiefs Supervisor  Career Development  Promotional Testing (Administration)
 Recruitment, Testing and Hiring
(Administration)
 EMS/Paramedic Coordinator  Swift Water Incident PIO Administrative Battalion
Chief
 Training and Coordination  Promotional Testing (Operations)  New Hire exams  New Hire Academy Coord.  Training scheduling  North Zone Training Group  North Zone Operations secondary  Apparatus specs/design  Safety/Wellness  Emergency Preparedness  CERT Training Battalion Chief
A-Division
 CICCS
 FMZ Coordinator  Pre-Fire Plans and IAP's  Mapping/GIS  Hazardous Materials Coordinator  Uniform Committee Chair Battalion Chief
B-Division
 RCS and VHF Radios
 MDCs  CAD/Response plans/Premise Hist.  Station Alerting  North Zone Communications Group  North Zone Technical User Group Battalion Chief
C-Division
 Telestaff  Policy/Procedures  RMS/CFIRS/NFIRS  Tableau  CERT Coordinator  Pagers  Knox B/C’s - ALL SHIFTS  Emergency Response
 Shift Supervisor  Morning Briefing  Operational Readiness of stations/daily activities
 Communicate daily activities with
each station
 Operations Chief/Duty Chief and
disseminate critical information as needed
 Meet with company officers in
each station to explain new orders, answer any questions, discuss policies and procedures; ensure proper awareness of new standards  Relay and receive information,
deliver interdepartmental mail if emergent
 Assist the Operation Chief
with Company Officers' evaluations
 Assist Company Officers with
counseling and coaching of subordinates when there is a performance or personnel problem if necessary  Participate in training activities
and observes companies as they participate in drills
 Preliminary investigations and/or
citizen complaints
 Analyzes information gained and
handles when appropriate; or formulates report and passes through chain of command  Keeps records and reviews RMS
reports per developed program
 Participate in agency
scheduled Captains’ meetings when on duty
 Participate in agency scheduled
shift or staff meeting
 Attend/present at council and
commissions meetings
 Incident analysis  Telestaff Payroll
EMS Services Division
EMS Coordinator
 LEMSIS  EMT/PM licensing  Continuing Education  AED/Defibrillators  EMS equipment  Controlled Drugs  CSA-17  Vaccinations  Infection Control  QA/QI Marine Safety Division Marine Safety Captain
 Liaison to City Offices  Liaison to Fire Chief  Attend Council Meetings  Public Safety Commission Rep  State Park Collab Mtgs. Rep  SDRALERT, CMSCA,

CLSA/USLA
 Operations Budgeting  Personnel (HR, Risk) Liaison  Supervisor Lt/Sgt’s  JG Program Oversight  Code Enforcement Supervisor  Career Development  Promotional Testing  Recruit, Hiring, Contracts  Special Permits Review  Marine Safety PIO Fire Prevention Division
Fire Marshal
 Code Enforcement  Plan Review  Inspection Permitting  Fire Protection Planning  Public Information Officer  Code/Law Review  Weed Abatement  Wildfire Planning and Mitigation  Company Inspections  Planning/Traffic Commission Support
 Public Education  Fire Investigations
Management Services
Division
Senior Management Analyst
 Budget Development
and Monitoring
 Cost Recovery  Grant Writing and
Administration
 Data Analysis  Policy Review and
Development
 Agenda Reports  Contracts and RFPs  NIMS Compliance  City Emergency Mgmt. and Mitigation Planning
 UDC Alternate
Management Analyst
 Budget Development &
Monitoring
 Cost Recovery  Grant Writing and
Administration
 Data Analysis  Policy Review and
Development
 Agenda Reports  Contracts and RFPs  NIMS Compliance  City Emergency Mgmt. and Mitigation Planning
 UDC Alternate
Admin. Support Coordinator
 Training/Certificate
Reimbursements
 Travel Expense Claims  Invoice/Purchase Order Processing  Cal Card Statements  Office Supplies  Annual Report  Records Management  Public Education Scheduling  Updating Phone Lists 221 February 22, 2022 Item 08
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 29
© Fitch& Associates, LLC
Management/Administrative Assessment         October 2021 222 February 22, 2022 Item 08
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
___________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Clem Brown, Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager Kristen M. Crane, Assistant City Manager
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: February 22, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of an Exclusive Solid Waste Collection Service Franchise Agreement with EDCO Disposal Corporation
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve a 10-year exclusive franchise agreement with EDCO Disposal Corporation (EDCO) for solid waste collection services with a start date of July 1, 2022 (Attachment A), and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement; and

2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) to initiate the notification process required by Proposition 218 and schedule a public hearing on May 16, 2022, to establish the City’s solid waste collection service rates effective July 1, 2022.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s current solid waste franchise agreement with Waste Management is set to end on June 30, 2022. Additionally, the City is required to comply with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 1383, which is the most comprehensive change in solid waste regulation in over 30 years. To comply with SB 1383, the City, through its franchised waste hauler, is required to ensure that all residents and businesses recycle their organic waste. As a result, singlefamily customers must be able to place food scraps in their greenwaste carts, and all commercial and multi-family customers will be required to subscribe to recycling service.

Incorporating the new regulations into the City’s next franchise agreement is both necessary and timely given that the current contract is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year.

On September 24, 2021, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organics Collection Services (Attachment C). On November 12, 2021, the City received qualified proposals from EDCO, Republic Services, and Waste Management.

Each proposal was reviewed by an evaluation team comprised of City staff, a City Councilappointed ad hoc subcommittee consisting of Mayor Worden and Councilmember Quirk, and the City’s solid waste consultant, MSW Consultants.
1 February 22, 2022 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement – EDCO
February 22, 2022