Agenda packet — Solana Beach City Council, February 23, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY AGENDA
Joint REGULAR Meeting
Wednesday, February 23, 2022 * 6:00 p.m.

Teleconference Location Only-City Hall/Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California Government Code sections 54953(e) and 54954.3 and other applicable law.

MEETING LOCATION WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Be advised that due to the COVID-19 pandemic in-person participation will not be allowed, there will be no members of the public in attendance at Council Meetings. Alternatives to in-person attendance for viewing and participating in City Council meetings are being provided under provided below.

AGENDA MATERIALS
A full City Council agenda packet including relative supporting documentation is posted online www.cityofsolanabeach.org Closed Session Agendas are posted at least 72 hours prior to regular meetings and at least 24 hours prior to special meetings.

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS
o Written correspondence (supplemental items) regarding an agenda item at an open session meeting should be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] with a) Subject line to include the meeting date b) Include the Agenda Item # as listed on the Agenda. o Correspondence received after the official posting of the agenda, but before 3:00 p.m. (or 3 hrs. prior to the meeting start time) on the meeting day, will be distributed to Council and made available online along with the agenda posting. All submittals received before the start of the meeting will be made part of the record.
o Written submittals will be added to the record and not read out loud. o The designated location for viewing supplemental documents is on the City’s website www.cityofsolanabeach.org on the posted Agenda under the relative Agenda Item.

OR
Verbal Comment Participation: If you wish to provide a live verbal comment during the meeting, attend the virtual meeting via your computer or call in.

Before Meeting
o Alert Clerk’s Office. We ask that you alert us that you will joining the meeting to speak. Please email us at [email protected] to let us know which item you will speak on. This allows our Staff to manage speakers more efficiently.
o Watch the Meeting and Make a Public Comment
You can watch the meeting on the Live Meeting button on the Public Meetings page OR on TV at the stations provided above OR on the zoom event:

Link: https://cosb-org.zoom.us/j/89698573408
Webinar ID: 896 9857 3408
If you cannot log on or need to use a phone for audio quality, use one of these call-in numbers (toll free):
888 475 4499 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free)
- Join/Log-In to the meeting at least 15 minutes prior to the start time so that the City Clerk can verify that you are ready to speak before the meeting begins. - Audio Accessibility: If your computer does not have a microphone or you have sound issues, you can call-in from a landline or cell phone and use it as your audio (phone # is provided once you log-in to Zoom, see above). If you call in for better audio, mute your computer's speakers to eliminate feedback so that you do not have two audios when you are speaking.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2022 Page 2 of 7 During Meeting:
o During each Agenda Item and Oral Communications, attendees will be asked if they would like to speak.

Speakers are taken during each agenda item.
o Speakers will be asked to raise their hand (zoom icon under participants can be clicked or on the phone you can dial *9) if they would like to be called on to speak during each item. We will call on you by your log in name or the last 4 digits of your phone #. When called on by the meeting organizer, we will unmute so you may provide comments for the allotted time. Allotted speaker times are listed under each Agenda section.
o Choose Gallery View to see the presentations, when applicable.

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED - AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT TITLE 2 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Section 202. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s office (858) 720- 2400 [email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
Lesa Heebner, Mayor
Kelly Harless
Deputy Mayor
David A. Zito
Councilmember
District 1
Jewel Edson
Councilmember
District 3
Kristi Becker
Councilmember
Gregory Wade
City Manager
Johanna Canlas
City Attorney
Angela Ivey
City Clerk
SPEAKERS:

See Public Participation on the first page of the Agenda for publication participation options.

READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:

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

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

FLAG SALUTE:

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

None at the posting of this agenda
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2022 Page 3 of 7 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items relating to City business and not appearing on today’s agenda by joining the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda.

Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action shall be taken by the City Council on public comment items.

No written correspondence may be submitted in lieu of public speaking. Council may refer items to the City Manager for placement on a future agenda. The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

COUNCIL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENTARY:

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

A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Action Items) (A.1. - A.6.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted in a single action of the City Council unless pulled for discussion.

Any member of the public may address the City Council on an item of concern by submitting written correspondence for the record to be filed with the record or by joining the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda. The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

Those items removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the Council will be trailed to the end of the agenda, while Consent Calendar items removed by the public will be discussed immediately after approval of the Consent Calendar.

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

1. Ratify the list of demands for January 22, 2022 – February 04, 2022.

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

A.2. General Fund Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. (File 0330-30) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive the report listing changes made to the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 General Fund Adopted Budget.

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

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2022 Page 4 of 7 A.3. Street Maintenance & Repair Project Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22. (File 0820-35) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-019:
a. Awarding a construction contract for the FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project, Bid 2022-01, in the amount of $547,612, to PAL General Engineering.
b. Approving an amount of $155,888 for construction contingency. c. Authorizing the appropriation of $17,500 from the Public Arts Reserve account to the General Fund CIP for the installation of the art pads at Las Banderas/San Andreas Drive and North Cedros Avenue/E. Cliff Street. d. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract on behalf of the City.
e. Authorizing the City Manager to approve cumulative change orders up to the construction contingency amount.

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

A.4. Destruction of Obsolete Records. (File 0170-50)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-018 authorizing the destruction of officially obsolete records.

Item A.4. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

A.5. Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1 – Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. (File 0480-70)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-021 opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

Item A.5. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2022 Page 5 of 7 A.6. Oppose City of Oceanside’s Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project. (File 0480-75)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-016 approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand.

Item A.6. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (B.1.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Any member of the public may address the City Council on an item of concern by submitting written correspondence for the record to be filed with the record or by registering to join the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda. The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

An applicant or designee(s) for a private development/business project, for which the public hearing is being held, is allotted a total of fifteen minutes to speak, as per SBMC 2.04.210. A portion of the fifteen minutes may be saved to respond to those who speak in opposition. All other speakers have three minutes each.

After considering all of the evidence, including written materials and oral testimony, the City Council must make a decision supported by findings and the findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

B.1. Public Hearing: 603 Glencrest Pl., Applicant: Johnson, Case: DRP20- 016/SDP20-022. (File 0600-40)
The proposed project could be found to be consistent with the General Plan and the underlying SBMC could be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a DRP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

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

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2022-014 conditionally approving a DRP and SDP to allow for the construction of a first-story remodel and new second-story addition to an existing one-story, single-family residence with an attached garage at 603 Glencrest Place, Solana Beach.

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

C. STAFF REPORTS: (C.1. – C.2.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2022 Page 6 of 7 C.1. La Colonia Master Plan Update. (File 0720-15)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-017 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $52,140, with Van Dyke Landscape Architects to update the La Colonia Master Plan, which would incorporate the vacant City-owned parcels north of the La Colonia Skate Park.

2. Authorizing an appropriation of $32,140 from the General Fund Undesignated Reserve Fund into the project account for the La Colonia Master Plan Update.

3. Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2021/2022 and FY 2022/23 Adopted Budget accordingly.

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

C.2. Fire Department Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover and Management/Administrative Assessment. (File 0260-10)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive the presentation from the Fire Department and Fitch and Associates, LLC, and provide feedback.

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

WORK PLAN COMMENTS:

Adopted June 23, 2021
COMPENSATION & REIMBURSEMENT DISCLOSURE:

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

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council Committees
REGIONAL COMMITTEES: (outside agencies, appointed by this Council) a. City Selection Committee (meets twice a year) Primary-Heebner, Alternate-Edson b. Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) JPA: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito c. County Service Area 17: Primary- Harless, Alternate-Edson d. Escondido Creek Watershed Authority: Becker /Staff (no alternate). e. League of Ca. Cities’ San Diego County Executive Committee: Primary-Becker, AlternateHarless. Subcommittees determined by its members. f. League of Ca. Cities’ Local Legislative Committee: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker g. League of Ca. Cities’ Coastal Cities Issues Group (CCIG): Primary-Becker, AlternateHarless h. North County Dispatch JPA: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker i. North County Transit District: Primary-Edson, Alternate-Harless Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 23, 2022 Page 7 of 7 j. Regional Solid Waste Association (RSWA): Primary-Harless, Alternate-Zito k. SANDAG: Primary-Heebner, 1
st Alternate-Zito, 2nd Alternate-Edson. Subcommittees
determined by its members.
l. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito m. San Dieguito River Valley JPA: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker n. San Elijo JPA: Primary-Zito, Primary-Becker, Alternate-City Manager o. 22nd Agricultural District Association Community Relations Committee: Primary-Edson, Primary-Heebner
STANDING COMMITTEES: (All Primary Members) (Permanent Committees) a. Business Liaison Committee – Zito, Edson.
b. Fire Dept. Management Governance & Organizational Evaluation – Harless, Edson c. Highway 101 / Cedros Ave. Development Committee – Edson, Heebner d. Parks and Recreation Committee – Zito, Harless
e. Public Arts Committee – Edson, Heebner
f. School Relations Committee – Becker, Harless
g. Solana Beach-Del Mar Relations Committee – Heebner, Edson

CITIZEN COMMISSION(S)
a. Climate Action Commission: Primary-Zito, Alternate-Becker ADJOURN:

Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting is March 09, 2022
Always refer the City’s website Event Calendar for Special Meetings or an updated schedule.

Or Contact City Hall 858-720-2400
www.cityofsolanabeach.org

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
§
I, Angela Ivey, City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, do hereby certify that this Agenda for the February 23, 2022 Council Meeting was called by City Council, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Public Financing Authority, and the Housing Authority of the City of Solana Beach, California, was provided and posted on February 16, 2022 at 3:30 p.m. on the City Bulletin Board at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. Said meeting is held at 6:00 p.m., February 23, 2022, in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California.

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

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

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance
SUBJECT: Register of Demands
BACKGROUND:

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

DISCUSSION:

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

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The register of demands for January 22, 2022 through February 4, 2022 reflects total expenditures of $765,805.40 from various City sources.

WORK PLAN:

N/A
Register of Demands- 01/22/21 through 02/04/22
Check Register-Disbursement Fund (Attachment 1) $ 513,129.01 Net Payroll January 7, 2022 195,620.59
Federal & State Taxes January 7, 2022 57,055.80
TOTAL $ 765,805.40
February 23, 2022
Register of Demands

Page 2 of 2 ends

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

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the above register of demands.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Check Register – Disbursement Fund
Page: 1 of 8
City of Solana Beach
Register of Demands
1/22/2022 - 2/4/2022
Department
Vendor Description
Check/EFT
Number Amount
100 - GENERAL FUND
PREFERRED BENEFIT INS ADMIN INC. DENTAL JAN 22 101275 $3,075.80 ICMA PLAN 302817 Payroll Run 1 - Warrant M16 9000421 $20,797.37 SOLANA BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC Payroll Run 1 - Warrant M16 9000424 $813.50 LEGAL SHIELD CORP PPD LEGAL-DEC 21 101222 $38.85
AFLAC JANUARY 22 101252 $803.86
DAVID ZITO RFND-OVERESTMT OF PRJCT EVALUATION 101250 $785.39 DAVID ZITO RFND-OVERESTMT OF PRJCT EVALUATION 101250 $13.26 DAVID ZITO RFND-OVERESTMT OF PRJCT EVALUATION 101250 $5.00 DAVID ZITO RFND-OVERESTMT OF PRJCT EVALUATION 101250 $47.13 DAVID ZITO RFND-OVERESTMT OF PRJCT EVALUATION 101250 $47.13 DAVID ZITO RFND-OVERESTMT OF PRJCT EVALUATION 101250 $47.13 ICMA RHS 801939 Payroll Run 1 - Warrant M16 9000422 $2,153.37 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC Crossing Guards - 11/28/21-12/11/21 9000414 $6,752.20 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC Crossing Guards - 11/14/21-11/27/21 9000414 $3,376.10 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC Crossing Guards - 10/31/21-11/13/21 9000414 $6,043.22 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC Crossing Guards - 10/17/21-10/30/21 9000414 $6,650.92 ERGOSTOP INC. CHAIR-COUNCIL 101262 $1,071.04
CT CORP OVR CK90050085-2022 BC RENEWAL 101249 $55.00
STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. M14/MC7 FSA PR CONTRIBUTIONS 9000413 $1,581.25 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. M14/MC7 FSA PR CONTRIBUTIONS 9000413 $212.50 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. M15 FSA PR CONTRIBUTIONS 9000413 $1,343.75 STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. M15 FSA PR CONTRIBUTIONS 9000413 $212.50 ERIC LODGE RFND-FCCC 01/02/22 101214 $500.00
PETER ADAMS RFND-SBGR-387/208 PACIFIC 101273 $93,700.00 MATT NUCKOLS RFND-FCCC 01/08/22 101265 $500.00
MICHAEL NYBERG RFND-FCCC 01/22/22 101266 $500.00
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $151,126.27
1005100 - CITY COUNCIL
CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY INC MUNICIPAL CODE WEB UPDATE 101207 $317.25 TOTAL CITY COUNCIL $317.25
1005150 - CITY CLERK
IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS STORAGE-JAN 101219 $535.54
PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SVC POSTAGE MTR-10/30/21-01/29/22 101274 $704.94 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2978979091-CD CASES 101236 $10.76 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2965942961-BINDERS 101236 $191.16 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2970917601-POST ITS/DIVIDERS 101236 $58.99 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2970923751-WIPES/MASKS/PCKNG TAPE 101236 $85.50 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2970925331-LED BULB 101236 $16.77 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2970946241-RULER 101236 $12.89 Page: 2 of 8
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2972489491-LED BULB 101236 $28.54 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2977328161-PENS 101236 $12.15 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2977808411-PENS/SCISSORS 101236 $73.65 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2977809011-UTILITY KNIFE 101236 $17.54 ROBERT HALF TEMP-12/17/21 101232 $1,522.88
ROBERT HALF Temp Agency for Front Desk-01/14/22 101278 $1,280.92 ROBERT HALF Temp Agency for Front Desk-01/21/22 101278 $1,280.92 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT, INC RECORDS STORAGE-NOV 101208 $658.35 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT, INC RECORDS STORAGE-DEC 101259 $546.72 TOTAL CITY CLERK $7,038.22
1005200 - CITY MANAGER
KAYLA MOSHKI REMBRSMNT-XMAS TREE LIGHTS 9000416 $115.82 TOTAL CITY MANAGER $115.82
1005300 - FINANCE
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2989668981-WHITEBOARD 101289 $33.93 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2989674691-HANGING FOLDER 101289 $26.93 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2997566141-KEYBOARD 101289 $40.93 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL STATISTICS INC CAFR DEBT STMNT-FY21 101204 $500.00 UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY PUB NTC-RESO TO AMND USER FEE SCHDL FOR 2022 101293 $234.01 BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC GASB68 FY21 AUDIT 101256 $1,750.00 XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-CLERK-DEC 101294 $69.96
NATIONAL PRINT AND PROMO TAX FORMS AND ENVELOPES 101227 $293.63 TOTAL FINANCE $2,949.39
1005350 - SUPPORT SERVICES
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2985363831-KLEENEX 101289 ($42.01) STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2986852001-DUST OFF/PAPER/FORK 101289 $125.80 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2987901231-FACE MASK-COVID 101289 $161.56 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2997601181-PAPER/TAPE 101289 $315.97 XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-UPSTAIRS-DEC 101294 $48.00
XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-UPSTAIRS-DEC 101294 $298.25
XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-CLERK-DEC 101294 $271.68
XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-PLANNING-DEC 101294 $101.45
XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-PLANNING-DEC 101294 $546.78
XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-FIERY-DEC-PLANNING 101294 $132.61 XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-FIERY-DEC-UPSTAIRS 101294 $132.61 XEROX CORPORATION XEROX-FIERY-DEC-CLERK 101294 $122.84
JENNIFER REED ADMIN SRVC-DEC 9000418 $48.75
OFFICE DEPOT INC ID CARD REEL CLIP 101269 $27.13
OFFICE DEPOT INC PAPER 101269 $155.33
KAYLA MOSHKI SUPPLIES FOR OFFICE PRIVACY WALL 9000423 $870.13 TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES $3,316.88
1005400 - HUMAN RESOURCES
WAGEWORKS FSA ADMIN-DEC 101246 $134.00
KAYLA MOSHKI REMB-PUBLIC ADMIN-MOSHKI 9000423 $2,000.00 PRIMO INVESTIGATIONS BACKGROUND-FORTIER 101276 $300.00
PRISM FY22 PEPM-JAN-MAR 101277 $418.08
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $2,852.08
Page: 3 of 8
1005450 - INFORMATION SERVICES
ELECTRO SPECIALTY SYSTEMS TIME SYNC ISSUE 101212 $108.00 WESTERN AUDIO VISUAL CHAMBERS TECH-JAN 101248 $499.00
KAYLA MOSHKI REMBSMNT-IT SUPPLIES DESK AREA 9000416 $181.49 TOTAL INFORMATION SERVICES $788.49
1005550 - PLANNING
UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY PUB HRNG-DRP MOD 21-003 101244 $249.77 UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY MOD 20-002-DRP/SDP/VTM-17-14-29 101244 $377.53 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 20-172 9905.03 PROF SVC-OCT 9000417 $511.00 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 20-172 9905.03 PROF SVC-NOV 9000417 $1,214.50 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 20-172 9905.03 PROF SVC-DEC 9000417 $569.00 TOTAL PLANNING $2,921.80
1005590 - PARKING ENFORCEMENT
DATATICKET INC. PARKING TICKET ADMIN-NOV 101210 $833.65 TOTAL PARKING ENFORCEMENT $833.65
1006110 - LAW ENFORCEMENT
ARJIS ARJIS FY 2021-22 101253 $9,054.00
TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT $9,054.00
1006120 - FIRE DEPARTMENT
SHELL FLEET MANAGEMENT AUTO FUEL/CR EXEMPT TAX-JUN 21 101284 $1,264.75 SHELL FLEET MANAGEMENT AUTO FUEL/CR EXEMPT TAX-JUN 21 101284 ($72.59) FIRE ETC. BOOTS-TOTH 101216 $542.59
REGIONAL COMMS SYS, MS 056 - RCS CAP CODE-DEC 101231 $32.50 FIRE STATS, LLC FIRE DATA-OCT21-DEC21 101217 $637.50
STREAMLINE AUTOMATION SYSTEMS, LLC FY22 FIRE INSPECTION SOFTWARE 101238 $2,408.00 L. N. CURTIS & SONS INC VICTIM/RESCUE HARNESSES 101264 $3,459.17 AFECO INC TURNOUT CLEANING-PHILLIPS 101287 $269.50
TOTAL FIRE DEPARTMENT $8,541.42
1006170 - MARINE SAFETY
CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO DRINKING WATER-DEC 101209 $51.83
CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO DRINKING WATER-JAN 101209 $52.83
TOTAL MARINE SAFETY $104.66
1006510 - ENGINEERING
VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-1-12/02/21-01/01/22 101245 $19.89 SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER CNTY RECORDR-APRIL 2021 101279 $98.00 TOTAL ENGINEERING $117.89
1006520 - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUDRY-PW 101224 $13.62
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PUB WORKS 101267 $13.62 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-014 11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $189.08 MIKHAIL OGAWA ENGINEERING STORM WATER PRK MNGMT-DEC 101223 $8,930.45 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-1-12/02/21-01/01/22 101245 $19.91 SWRCB FY 2021/22 STRM WTR PERMIT 101237 $3,326.00
SES SECURE E-WASTE SOLUTIONS BATTERY/BULB DESTRUCTION 101235 $2,048.05 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY TRANSPORT/DISPOSAL -5 PAIL 101213 $2,158.24 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES $16,698.97
Page: 4 of 8
1006530 - STREET MAINTENANCE
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUDRY-PW 101224 $23.35
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PUB WORKS 101267 $23.35 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC ELECTRICAL TAPE 101211 $11.23
JIM GREENSTEIN REMBSMNT-PAINT/RETAINING WALL 101218 $45.06 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 011695-000 11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $129.20 SDG&E CO INC UTILITES-12/01-01/07 101281 $566.90
SDG&E CO INC UTILITES-12/08-01/07 101281 $883.90
NAPA AUTO PARTS INC BULBS/REFRIGERANT 101226 $95.87
NAPA AUTO PARTS INC RFND-INVOICE 574698/CORE DEPOSIT 101226 ($32.33) SAN DIEGO CNTY VECTOR CNTROL PROGRM FY 21/22 VECTOR CONTROL 101233 $140.19 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-1-12/02/21-01/01/22 101245 $19.91 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-OCT 101268 $1,827.01 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-DEC 101268 $1,827.01 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC 101268 $401.05 TRAFFIC SUPPLY, INC PEDSTRIAN SIGNS 101240 $1,360.75
HABITAT PROTECTION, INC DEAD ANIMAL RECOVERY-NOT FOUND 101272 $50.00 THE HOME DEPOT PRO LINERS 101239 $548.34
TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE $7,920.79
1006540 - TRAFFIC SAFETY
SDG&E CO INC UTILITES-12/01-01/07 101281 $515.16
SDG&E CO INC UTILITES-12/08-01/07 101281 $1,157.18
VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-1-12/02/21-01/01/22 101245 $14.22 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012279-12/24/21-01/23/22 101255 $46.81 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC Crossing Guards - 11/28/21-12/11/21 9000414 $3,635.80 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC Crossing Guards - 11/14/21-11/27/21 9000414 $1,817.90 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC Crossing Guards - 10/31/21-11/13/21 9000414 $3,254.04 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC Crossing Guards - 10/17/21-10/30/21 9000414 $3,581.26 SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHT MAINT/REPAIR-OCT 101286 $2,509.33 TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY $16,531.70
1006550 - STREET CLEANING
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 011695-000 11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $75.88 PRIDE INDUSTRIES TRASH ABATEMENT SERVICES-DEC 101229 $522.69 TOTAL STREET CLEANING $598.57
1006560 - PARK MAINTENANCE
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUDRY-PW 101224 $16.54
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PUB WORKS 101267 $16.54 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC STRAW WATTLE ROLL 101211 $26.93 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC SAND BAGS 101211 $208.43
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-005-10/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $349.60 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-018-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $193.35 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-019-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $689.92 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-015-11/16/21-01/14/22 101280 $190.66 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-016-11/16/21-01/14/22 101280 $600.03 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-003-11/16/21-01/14/22 101280 $639.07 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-1-12/02/21-01/01/22 101245 $28.44 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-OCT 101268 $20,394.73 Page: 5 of 8
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-DEC 101268 $16,623.04 THE HOME DEPOT PRO LINERS 101239 $548.34
ADIR STRIPING INC. PICKLE BALL COURT STRIPING 101203 $750.00 TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE $41,275.62
1006570 - PUBLIC FACILITIES
DSR - DOOR SERVICE & REPAIR, INC AS NEEDED RPR-01/19/22 101261 $1,109.00 DSR - DOOR SERVICE & REPAIR, INC DOOR SERVICE AT CITY FACILITIES-01/24/22 101261 $2,344.00 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC SQUEEGEE/GLOVE SCRUBBER 101211 $25.21 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC GLOVES/SQUEEGEE 101260 $33.93
DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC DUCT TAPE 101260 $11.62
DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC SCREWS/ANGLES 101260 $16.85
DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC ADHSV TAPE 101260 $5.81
SDG&E CO INC UTILITES-12/01-01/07 101281 $1,602.62
SDG&E CO INC UTILITES-12/08-01/07 101281 $6,152.08
SWRCB FY 2021/22 STRM WTR PRMT 101237 $10,602.00
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-OCT 101268 $3,102.21 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-DEC 101268 $2,802.68 24 HOUR ELEVATOR, INC ELEVATOR MAINT-JAN 101202 $193.40 ABEL PEREZ MILEAGE-01/22/22-01/23/22 101251 $8.19
CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 FIRST AID SUPPLIES-PW 101206 $57.33 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST/RODENT CONTROL-DEC-FC 101228 $34.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST/RODENT CONTROL-DEC-FS 101228 $40.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST/RODENT CONTROL-DEC-LC 101228 $64.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST/RODENT CONTROL-DEC-CH 101228 $53.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST/RODENT CONTROL-DEC-MS 101228 $63.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST/RODENT CONTROL-DEC-PW 101228 $34.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST CONTROL-JAN-MS 101272 $63.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST CONTROL-JAN-FS 101272 $40.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST CONTROL-JAN-FC 101272 $34.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST CONTROL-JAN-PW 101272 $34.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST CONTROL-JAN-LC 101272 $35.00 HABITAT PROTECTION, INC PEST CONTROL-JAN-CH 101272 $53.00 THE HOME DEPOT PRO CLOROX/LINERS 101239 $133.73
CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC DISINFECTION 01/07/22 101205 $250.00 CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC CH-DISINFECTION 01/23/22 101257 $250.00 READY REFRESH BY NESTLE DRINKING WATER-LC 101230 $36.57 READY REFRESH BY NESTLE DRINKING WATER-PW 101230 $57.09 READY REFRESH BY NESTLE DRINKING WATER-CH 101230 $165.39 PRIDE INDUSTRIES TRASH ABATEMENT SERVICES-DEC 101229 $522.69 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $30,029.40
1007100 - COMMUNITY SERVICES
ONE DAY SIGNS ARTIST NAMES 101270 $129.30
MUNICIPAL MANAGEMT ASSOC OF SC MMASC MEMBERSHIP-KAYLA MOSHKI 101225 $90.00 TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES $219.30
1007110 - GF-RECREATION
SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. LIFT-TREE LIGHT REPAIR 101290 $715.98 JULIE VAN DER AUWERA REMBRSMNT-SANTA FLOAT DECOR 101220 $164.14 Page: 6 of 8
TOTAL GF-RECREATION $880.12
1205460 - SELF INSURANCE RETENTION
SECTRAN SECURITY INC COURIER SRVC/FUEL-DEC 101283 $135.42 SECTRAN SECURITY INC COURIER SRVC/FUEL-JAN 101283 $150.83 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC. CLM.2201 DEJONGH-SLIGHT PRO SVC 101263 $199.50 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC. CLM.2202 RIECKEN PROF SVC 101263 $198.00 TOTAL SELF INSURANCE RETENTION $683.75
1255465 - WORKERS COMPENSATION
TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT FY22 CLAIMS SERVICE-Q3 101241 $7,034.43 PRISM FY 21 EWC PREM ADJ 101277 $10,050.00
TOTAL WORKERS COMPENSATION $17,084.43
1355200 - ASSET REPLACEMENT-CTY MNGR
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IMPLMNTN HR 101242 $3,840.00
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IMPLMNTN HR 101242 $3,200.00
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IMPLEMENTATION-HR 101292 $640.00 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 50/50 WORK SPLIT 101292 $1,799.49 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 50/50 WORK SPLIT 101292 $449.87 TOTAL ASSET REPLACEMENT-CTY MNGR $9,929.36
1355300 - ASSET REPLACEMENT-FINANCE
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 50/50 WORK SPLIT 101292 $3,800.51 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 50/50 WORK SPLIT 101292 $950.13 TOTAL ASSET REPLACEMENT-FINANCE $4,750.64
2037510 - HIGHWAY 101 LANDSC #33
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-004-11/16/21-01/14/22 101280 $404.51 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 007732-000-11/16/21-01/14/22 101280 $198.73 SDG&E CO INC UTILITES-12/08-01/07 101281 $2,942.73
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-OCT 101268 $2,323.20 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-DEC 101268 $2,079.50 TOTAL HIGHWAY 101 LANDSC #33 $7,948.67
2047520 - MID 9C SANTA FE HILLS
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-012-10/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $117.34 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-006-10/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $1,390.60 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-007-10/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $1,604.45 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-009-10/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $773.49 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-010-10/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $703.90 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-011-10/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $502.27 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-021-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $967.53 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-022-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $666.46 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-023-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $678.19 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-024-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $799.40 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-025-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $564.80 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-026-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $791.58 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-015-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $478.78 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-016-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $744.66 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-017-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $61.56 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-018-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $96.75 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-019-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $292.25 Page: 7 of 8
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-020-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $768.12 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-014-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $658.64 TOTAL MID 9C SANTA FE HILLS $12,660.77
2087580 - COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINT
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-020-11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $1,531.33 KOPPEL & GRUBER PUBLIC FINANCE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ADMIN-OCT-DEC 101221 $327.48 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-OCT 101268 $4,973.58 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SRVC-DEC 101268 $3,996.53 TOTAL COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINT $10,828.92
2117600 - STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
SDG&E CO INC UTILITES-12/01-01/07 101281 $8,450.75
KOPPEL & GRUBER PUBLIC FINANCE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ADMIN-OCT-DEC 101221 $639.97 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-1-12/02/21-01/01/22 101245 $5.69 TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT $9,096.41
240 - COMM DEV BLOCK GR (CDBG)
PAL GENERAL ENGINEERING INC 9355 PED RAMPS RTN RLS 101271 $2,175.00 TOTAL COMM DEV BLOCK GR (CDBG) $2,175.00
2505570 - COASTAL BUSINESS/VISITORS
EXTERIOR PRODUCTS INC BREEDER CUP STREET BANNERS 2021 101215 $12,987.25 SOLANA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Q1 VISITORS CENTER 101288 $7,500.00 SOLANA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Q2 VISITORS CENTER 101288 $7,500.00 SOLANA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Q3 VISITORS CENTER 101288 $7,500.00 ASCAP CONCERT LICENSE 2022 101254 $394.66
TOTAL COASTAL BUSINESS/VISITORS $35,881.91
4506190 - SAND REPLNSHMNT/RETENTION
SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC SURF MONITORING CAMERA 101285 $4,535.00 SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC SURF MONITORING CAMERA 101285 $11,996.00 WARWICK GROUP CONSULTANTS, LLC 9926.21 PROF SVC-DEC 101247 $4,945.00 TOTAL SAND REPLNSHMNT/RETENTION $21,476.00
4595550 - MISC. CAPITAL PROJECTS
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 20-172 9905.03 PROF SVC-OCT 9000417 $14,014.00 TOTAL MISC. CAPITAL PROJECTS $14,014.00
4596510 - MISC.CAPITALPROJECTS-ENG
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA 9530 TREE PLANTING-NOV 101268 $315.55 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA 9530 TREE PLANTING-NOV 101268 $2,204.53 NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA 9530 TREE PLANTING-NOV 101268 $979.72 TOTAL MISC.CAPITALPROJECTS-ENG $3,499.80
5097700 - SANITATION
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUDRY-PW 101224 $9.73
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PUB WORKS 101267 $9.73 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-008-10/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $87.70 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005506-014 11/02/21-12/01/21 101234 $567.26 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 362455526-1-12/02/21-01/01/22 101245 $5.69 ABEL PEREZ MILEAGE-01/22/22-01/23/22 101251 $8.19
AT&T CALNET 3 9391012277-12/24/21-01/23/22 101255 $15.56 US BANK FY22 SAN ELIJO JPA 2017 REV BOND-6712200500 101243 $475.00 Page: 8 of 8
TOTAL SANITATION $1,178.86
5507750 - SOLANA ENERGY ALLIANCE
BAYSHORE CONSULTING GROUP, INC CCA PROF SCV-DEC 9000415 $225.00 TOSDAL APC SEA PROF SVC-DEC 101291 $2,935.00
SDG&E SEA CCA SVC-NOV 101282 $7.70
TOTAL SOLANA ENERGY ALLIANCE $3,167.70
6527820 - SUCCESSOR AGENCY
COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH, & WHATLEY PC SDCOE CONSORTIUM-DEC 101258 $58.00 TOTAL SUCCESSOR AGENCY $58.00
6718510 - BARBARA UNDERGROUNDING-DS
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST BARB BOND INT 03/02/22 9000419 $26,750.00 TOTAL BARBARA UNDERGROUNDING-DS $26,750.00
6728520 - PACIFIC UNDERGROUNDING-DS
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST PACIFIC BOND INT 03/02/22 9000419 $9,000.00 TOTAL PACIFIC UNDERGROUNDING-DS $9,000.00
6738530 - MARSOLAN UNDERGROUNDNG-DS
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST MARSOLAN BOND INT 3/2 9000420 $9,060.00 TOTAL MARSOLAN UNDERGROUNDNG-DS $9,060.00
6768560 - SO SOLANA SEWER DISTR-DS
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST SSSWR BOND INT 3/2 9000420 $9,652.50 TOTAL SO SOLANA SEWER DISTR-DS $9,652.50
REPORT TOTAL: $513,129.01
COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.2.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance
SUBJECT: Report on Changes Made to the General Fund Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2021/22
BACKGROUND:

Staff provides a report at each Council meeting that lists changes made to the current Fiscal Year (FY) General Fund Adopted Budget.

The information provided in this Staff Report lists the changes made through February 9, 2022.

DISCUSSION:

The following table reports the revenue, expenditures, and transfers for 1) the Adopted General Fund Budget approved by Council on June 23, 2021 (Resolution 2021-092) and 2) any resolutions passed by Council that amended the Adopted General Fund Budget.

Action Description Revenues Expenditures
Transfers
from GF Net Surplus
Reso 2021-092 Adopted Budget 22,694,100 (20,222,560) (916,100) (1) $ 1,555,440 Reso 2021-086 Crossing Guards 121,540 (48,984) - 1,627,996 Reso 2021-096 FY22 MOU - (950) - 1,627,046
Reso 2021-103 Landscaping Maintenance Services - (40,000) - 1,587,046 Reso 2021-125 Street Maintenance and Repairs Project - - (200,000) (2) 1,387,046 (1) Transfers to: 150,100
Debt Service for Public Facilities 150,100
Transfer to: 766,000
City CIP Fund 766,000
(2) Transfer to: 200,000
City CIP Fund 200,000
Action Description Revenues Expenditures
Transfers
from GF Net
Reso 2021-124 FY21 Surplus- PARS Contribution - (455,000) (455,000)

GENERAL FUND - ADOPTED BUDGET PLUS CHANGES
As of February 9, 2022
General Fund Operations
General Fund Unreserved Balance
..
..
..
..

February 23, 2022
General Fund Budget Changes -FY 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

Not a project as defined by CEQA
FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A
WORK PLAN:

N/A
OPTIONS:
∙ Receive the report.
∙ Do not accept the report
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report listing changes made to the FY 2021-2022 General Fund Adopted Budget.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation
_________________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.3.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Resolution 2022-019 Awarding the FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project BACKGROUND:

In 2021, a City-wide pavement condition assessment was performed to determine the most effective way to budget, repair, replace and preserve City street pavements. Based upon this condition assessment report, the consultant prepared a priority list for the City’s pavement repairs and maintenance. This list was used to select street segments for this year’s street maintenance and repair program.

At the November 10, 2021 City Council (Council) meeting, Council approved the list of streets for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Street Maintenance and Repairs Project and authorized the City Engineer to advertise for construction bids. The map of proposed street repairs is included as Attachment 2. The streets to be resurfaced are:

Street From To
Lirio Street North Granados Avenue South Nardo Avenue
Santa Helena Santa Rosita Santa Victoria (west)
Santa Helena Santa Victoria (west) Sun Valley Rd
Glencrest Drive Glencrest Place Canyon Drive
South Nardo Avenue Lomas Santa Fe Drive El Sueno
Juanita Street Valley Avenue End
Santa Theresa Court Sun Valley Road End
Via Chica Via Mil Cumbres End
In addition to the pavement repairs, this year’s project includes the following:

1. Two speed cushions on South Cedros Avenue in the residential area south of Marsolan Avenue

2. Additional localized pavement repairs (dig-outs)
February 23, 2022
Award FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project

Page 2 of 4 ends

3. Additional traffic restriping and markings

4. 841 Ida Avenue – asphalt concrete berm

5. Solana Glen Court cul-de-sac – replace damaged concrete

6. Barbara Avenue cul-de-sac – curb and gutter improvements

7. San Andres Drive at Las Banderas Avenue – art pad installation

8. North Cedros at Cliff Street – foundation for permanent installation of sculpture art

9. 120-140 South Sierra Avenue – replace damaged concrete

10. Solana Vista Elementary School – pedestrian enhancements

11. La Colonia Park parking lot repairs, sealcoat, and restriping Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City modified the bid process to allow electronic submission of bids which was publicly opened by the City Clerk on February 7, 2022.

This item is before the Council to consider adopting Resolution 2022-019 (Attachment 1) awarding a construction contract to PAL General Engineering, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project.

DISCUSSION:

At the Council meeting on October 13, 2021, Council directed Staff to increase the budget by $200,000 for the pavement maintenance to include additional street segments for the current year street pavement program. The proposed pavement maintenance program for FY 2021/22 will also include localized pavement repairs (dig-outs) throughout the City, replacement of faded traffic striping and markings, and the items listed above.

The FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project, Bid No. 2022-01, was prepared and advertised for construction bids. The City received eleven bid proposals for Bid No. 2022-

01. On February 7, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., the City Clerk opened the bids. The bids are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bid Results
Contractor Bid Price
PAL General Engineering $ 547,612.00
Eagle Paving 598,135.00
SRM Contracting & Paving 625,872.00
ATP General Engineering 640,435.00
PaveWest 655,345.00
Frank And Son Paving 713,906.06
TC Construction Company 725,843.00
LC Paving & Sealing 758,745.53
Hazard Construction 762,552.00
Ramona Paving & Const 1,047,802.00
Blue Pacific Engineering & Construction 1,114,569.31
February 23, 2022
Award FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project

Page 3 of 4 ends

The bid submitted by PAL General Engineering was found to be complete and responsive to the bid specifications. PAL General Engineering has successfully completed previous projects for the City. Staff is recommending that PAL General Engineering be awarded the construction contract. The contract amount is based on the City Engineer’s estimated unit quantities and the contractor’s bid unit prices. The final cost of the project will be based on field measurements and the actual completed quantities. The contract allows 60 working days (12 weeks) to complete the work. The project is anticipated to be started in March/April 2022 and be completed in June/July 2022.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Project funding will be from the FY 2021/22 Annual Pavement Management Project as listed in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Funding
In addition to the $547,612 construction contract, Staff is recommending the remaining budget for a contingency of $155,888 (approximately 28%) for unanticipated changes and additional street repairs, for a total construction budget of $703,500.

WORK PLAN:

This project is listed in the FY 2021/22 Work Plan under the Unprioritized Community Character Issues.

OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Approve Staff recommendation with alternative amendments / modifications.

CIP No. Project Title Fund Amount
CIP-13 Annual Pavement Management Program Gas Tax $170,000 TransNet 38,000
SB1 270,000
General Fund 200,000
CIP for La Colonia Parking Lot Repair General Fund 8,000 Public Art Reserve General Fund 17,500
Total Funding $703,500
February 23, 2022
Award FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project

Page 4 of 4 ends

• Do not approve Staff recommendations.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council consider adoption of Resolution 2022-019:

1. Awarding a construction contract for the FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project, Bid 2022-01, in the amount of $547,612, to PAL General Engineering.

2. Approving an amount of $155,888 for construction contingency.

3. Authorizing the appropriation of $17,500 from the Public Arts Reserve account to the General Fund CIP for the installation of the art pads at Las Banderas/San Andreas Drive and North Cedros Avenue/E. Cliff Street.

4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract on behalf of the City.

5. Authorizing the City Manager to approve cumulative change orders up to the construction contingency amount.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-019

2. Map of Proposed Street Repairs
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2022-019

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE FY 21-22 STREET
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR PROJECT, BID 2022-01, TO PAL

GENERAL ENGINEERING
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Program portion of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Adopted Budget contains appropriations for annual pavement repairs; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Department utilized a City-wide pavement condition assessment, field reviews and a review of previous street rehabilitation projects to identify the list of streets to be repaired as part of this project; and WHEREAS, in response to an advertisement for construction bids, the City received eleven bids for the project; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the City Clerk opened the construction bids and publicly read the bids aloud.

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

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Council awards a construction contract for the FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project, Bid 2022-01, in the amount of $547,612, to PAL General Engineering.

3. That the City Council approves an amount of $155,888 for construction contingency.

4. That the City Council authorizes the appropriation of $17,500 from the Public Arts Reserve account to the General Fund CIP for the installation of the art pads at Las Banderas/San Andreas Drive and North Cedros Avenue/E. Cliff Street.

5. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the construction contract on behalf of the City.

Resolution 2022-019
Award FY 21-22 Street Maintenance & Repair Project

Page 2 of 2 ends

6. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to approve cumulative change orders up to the construction contingency amount.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of February 2022, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

THERESA
SANTA
CHICA
VIA
APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON 10/13/2021
APPROVED ADDITIONS ON 11/10/2021
SPEED

CUSHIONS
2021 STREET MAINTENANCE
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.4.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Clerk’s Office
SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Resolution 2022-018 Destruction of Obsolete Records
BACKGROUND:

Periodically, the City reviews its records to identify those available for official destruction. Destruction of records frees up storage space and helps Staff manage the large volume of records. Stockpiling vast amounts of public records increases the risk of document misplacement and Staff time spent complying with requests for documents that are no longer required to be retained. Therefore, the City conducts periodic destruction to manage its accumulation of obsolete records.

The maintenance and storage of records that are no longer required to be retained can be cumbersome due to inventory maintenance and added costs for offsite storage. It should be noted that records required and/or necessary to be retained by the City are kept for their relative retention period.

This item is before Council to consider adoption of Resolution 2022-018 (Attachment 1) approving the official destruction of obsolete records.

DISCUSSION:

Destruction of records is permitted in accordance with state law and the City’s Records Retention Schedule, which was adopted by Resolution 2000-34 and Resolution 2002-

76. The City’s Retention Schedule contains state law requirements as well as additional City retention provisions outlining retention periods for various government records.

Resolution 2022-018 contains the attached Lists of Records to be Destroyed (Exhibit A of Resolution 2022-018) itemizing the description of documents that are prepared for destruction. These documents are obsolete and may be destroyed in compliance with February 23, 2022
Destruction of Records

Page 2 of 2 ends

the City’s adopted Retention Schedule. In addition, procedures are conducted as outlined in the City’s Records Management Manual including following all updated retention requirements of state regulations. After careful review of the records by the respective Department Staff, Department Heads, City Attorney and City Clerk/Custodian of Records, 29 boxes of obsolete records were prepared and authorized for destruction.

CEQA COMPLIANCE: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:

The City will save administrative and storage expenses by destroying records no longer needed or required to be retained. The cost of official destruction of these documents has been allocated within the City Clerk Department’s budget to accommodate this service.

WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Do not approve Staff recommendation.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-018 authorizing the destruction of officially obsolete records.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation
_________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-018
RESOLUTION 2022-018

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING

DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE RECORDS
WHEREAS, the maintenance of numerous records is expensive, slows document retrieval, and is not necessary after a certain period of time, according to the Solana Beach Records Retention Schedule which adheres to various state codes and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the maintenance of these records does not provide for effective and efficient operation of the government of the City of Solana Beach; and WHEREAS, Section 34090 of the Government Code of the State of California provides a procedure whereby any City record which has served its purpose and is no longer required may be officially destroyed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Records Retention Schedule on June 6, 2000, and adopted a revised Records Retention Schedule on August 20, 2002; and WHEREAS, the documents proposed for destruction were reviewed by the Department Directors and authorized for official destruction by the City Attorney and City Clerk/Custodian of Records, and are currently compliant with State Code retention requirements.

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

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the records of the City of Solana Beach, as set forth in the attached Lists of Records to be Destroyed (Exhibit A) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby authorized to be destroyed as provided by Section 34090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California and in accordance with the provision of the adopted Solana Beach Records Retention Schedule and upon the consent of the Department Heads, City Attorney, and City Clerk/Custodian of Records.

3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

4. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

Resolution 2022-018
Destruction of Obsolete Records

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2022 at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
_________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________________ ____________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION 2022-018
Lists of Records to be Officially Destroyed
29 Boxes
1 FIN – Purchase Order FY 2013/2014
2 FIN – A/P Batch Approvals, Checklist Batches, Cash Req., Pay Confirmation FY 2013 - 14 3 FIN – Cash Receipts, Direct/Cash Deposits April 2014 - June 2014 4 FIN - Cash Receipts, Direct/Cash Deposits Jan 2014 - March 2014 5 FIN - Cash Receipts, Direct/Cash Deposits Oct 2013 - Dec 2013 6 FIN - Cash Receipts, Direct/Cash Deposits July 2013 – Sept 2013 7 FIN – Warrants FY 13/14 May 01, 2014 – June 26, 2014, 082917-083308 8 FIN – Warrants FY 13/14 March 06, 2014 – April 24, 2014, 082554-082916 9 FIN – Warrants FY 13/14 Jan 09, 2014 – Feb 27, 2014, 082194 – 082553 10 FIN – Warrants FY 13/14 Nov 07, 2013 – Dec 26, 2013, 081846-082192 11 FIN – Warrants FY 13/14 Sept 05, 2013 – Oct 31, 2013, 081484 – 081844 12 FIN – Warrants FY 13/14 July 15, 2013 – Aug 29, 2013, 081026 – 081452 13 FIN – Journal Entries FY 2007/12, Bonds Oct- Dec 2011, Bank Reconciliation FY 2011/12 14 FIN – Journal Entries FY 2002/07
15 FIN – Journal Entries FY 2000/02
16 FIN – Journal Entries FY 2008/09, Payroll 2008-2012
17 FIN – Budget FY 2012/13, Bank Transfers & Reconciliations FY 2011/13 18 FIN – Budget & Banking FY 2009/10
19 COMSERV – Public Art Proposals, Working Files, Comm. Services, Citizen Interest Forms, Photos 20 CM – Corresp. /Working Papers & Docs/ Copies, Comm. Grants, Complaints, Proposals, Disaster Plans 21 CM – Legal Dept. Corresp. Files, Assistant City Manager 22 CM – City Manager Dept., Fire Dept., Working Files/ Corresp. 23 CLK – Outside Org., Boards & Commissions
24 MS – Marine Safety Records, Working Files/ Corresp., City Manager/Public Arts 25 MS – Incident Reports, Stats, Complaints, Corresp., STD. Operating Procedures, Dept. Payroll 26 MS – Dept. Payroll, Dept. Budget, Correspondence, Incident Reports 27 PLN – Closed “Code Enforcement” Cases, A-V, 1997-99
28 PLN – Closed “Code Enforcement” Cases 1998-2002
29 PLN – Solicitor Permit/Lic., Entmt Est., Massage Tech., Secondhand Dealers Permit, Taxi Lic., False Sec. Alarm Notices

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fin M Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance

PURCHASE ORDERS
FISCAL YEAR 2013/2014
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: ____ K"""'a'"""y-'V"""'in-'-'s=o.c.,;.n_ 12-21-21 Department Head ____ R-'-y'""a"""'n-'S"'"'"m-'-'-i'""'"th-'-_ City Clerk/Custodian of Records ---:...A..:.:...n=g=e=la:....;.l..:...ve::..iyc.-- City Attorney ___ --=c.J=oh'--'-'a=n..;.;..n-=a=--C=-a=n""'"f=as~--

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090 Fin L
Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
FY 2013-14
- A/P Batch Approvals
- Checklist Batches
- Cash Requirements
- Positive Pay Confirmations
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: _--,;_K=ay"---=--V:..:....:.in=so=nc...-- 12-21-21 Department Head _....:.,.R.:..,.y=anc..:...-=S:...:..;m=ithc.:-_ Signature:~~--~~--- City Clerk/Custodian of Records -~A~ng-e~la~l~v-ey...,__ City Attorney --~J=oc.:....:.h=an...:..:.n=a:......::C=a::..:..n=la=s __

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090 Fin J
Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
APRIL 2014

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
MAY2014

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
JUNE 2014

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: Kay Vinson
Department Head Ryan Smith
City Clerk/Custodian of Records __ A-'-'n__..q~el=a~lv...c..ey.,___ City Attorney __ ----.:::.;Jo::..:...h=a:....:.:.nn=a:.....;:C=a:..:....:.nl=as=---_ 12-21-21

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Coc;ie Section: GC §34090 Fin 1 Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
JANUARY 2014

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
FEBRUARY 2014

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
MARCH 2014

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: Kay Vinson
Department Head Ryan Smith
City Clerk/Custodian of Records _-;Ac....;.;n..;.,;;q=el=a...;..;;lv-=-ey,___ Signature:

City Attorney __ -----"-Jo"-'-h=a=nn""""a'---'CC.....Ca=n=la..c..--s __ 12-21-21

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090 Fin H
Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
OCTOBER 2013

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
NOVEMBER 2013

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
DECEMBER 2013

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: Kay Vinson
Department Head Ryan Smith
City Clerk/Custodian of Records __ A'""""n....._q~e=la--'--lv....c.e_,_y _ Signa City Attorney ___ Jo_h~a~nn~a_C_a_n~la~s __
12-21-21

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, Fin G Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
JULY 2013

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
AUGUST 2013

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
SEPTEMBER 2013

CASH RECEIPTS

DIRECT DEPOSITS

CASH DEPOSITS
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: Kay Vinson
Department Head Ryan Smith
City Clerk/Custodian of Records _----'A'-'-'n=g=el=a -'-'-lv~ey,____ City Attorney __ ---'-Jo"-'-h=a=nn=a~C~a=n=la=--s __
12-21-21
J/4s/4

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fin F Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance

WARRANTS
FISCAL YEAR 13/14
MAY 01, 2014 TO JUNE 26, 2014
082917 - 083308
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: --.:.K=a=y----=Vc...:..:in-=-=s=o.:....:.n_ Department Head _....,:.R....:...y=a=n....:S::..:.m.:..:.;i:..:..:cth-'-_ City Clerk/Custodian of Records ______ A-"'-n'""'q""'"e=la'--'-1-'-ve"""'y ____ City Attorney ---~Jo~h~a-"'-n"""'n-=a~C~a~n~la...cs __
12-21-21

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fin E Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance

WARRANTS
FISCAL YEAR 13/14
MARCH 06, 2014 TO APRIL 24, 2014
082554 - 082916
Records Prepared / Inventoried By: _....:.K-=a;:.,Ly_,Vc..:..:in-=-=s=o.:....:.n_ Department Head _---,;Rc...:..Y1-:a=n.:....;S=-=m...:...:..:.:;ithc.:-_ City Clerk/Custodian of Records ------=-A..:.:..n=q=e"-"'la,__,_1..:..;ve::<..Jy,____ City Attorney ---=Jo=h=a=nc:....:n=a-=C=a=n=la=s __ Signature:
12-21-21

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fino Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance

WARRANTS
FISCAL YEAR 13/14
JANUARY 09, 2014 TO FEBRUARY 27, 2014
082194 - 082553
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: _...,:..K=a:.<-y.....:Vc..:..:in...:.::s=o-'-'n_ Department Head _---.:.R...:...YL.::a=nc....::S=m.:....:.i:..:..:.th-'-_ City Clerk/Custodian of Records ____ A-"'-n""'g"""e""'la"'""l-'--ve"'""y.__ City Attorney ---~Jo~h~a=n"'""'n~a~C~a"-n~la=s __
12-21-21

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fin c Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance

WARRANTS
FISCAL YEAR 13/14
NOVEMBER 07, 2013 TO DECEMBER 26, 2013
081846 - 082192
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: ____ K=a'"""y--'V"""'in-'-'s=o~n_ 12-21-21 Department Head ____ R_....y-=a'--'-n """S-'-'-m'"'"'it-'--h_ City Clerk/Custodian of Records _ __;,_:A~ng=e=la"--'l'--'-ve.:;...iyc.- City Attorney -----=J;..;::.o~ha=n-"-n=a'---'C"-"a""'"'n=la=s __ Signature:

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fins Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance

WARRANTS
FISCAL YEAR 13/14
SEPTEMBER 05, 2013 TO OCTOBER 31, 2013
081484 - 081844
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: _.....:,.K=a::.,..y....::V..:..:.in=s=-o.:....:..n_ DepartmentHead_....::R~y~a~n~S=m~ith~-
City Clerk/Custodian of Records -~A-"-n=g=e'-'-la'--'1--'-ve""""y..,_ City Attorney ---~Jo~h~a~n~n--'-a~C~a_n_la_s __
12-21-21

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fin A Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance

WARRANTS
FISCAL YEAR 13/14
JUL V 15, 2013 TO AUGUST 29, 2013
081026 - 081452
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: --=-K-=-=a"-'-y--'V:....:.;in=s=-=oc.:....:n_ Department Head _-,;R--=-y'-"a"""n'-S=m...:..;.:..c;ith'-'--_ City Clerk/Custodian of Records ------.:.A..:..:.n.:..:g=e=la:....:l...:..ve::::..yi..- City Attorney ----=-Jo=h-=-=a=n=n=a....:::C:....::a;:.:..n=la=s;,...___ 12-21-21

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fin 30 Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
Journal Entries (7 years after audit)
• Fiscal Year 2007-2008, Periods 1-6, July 2007-Dec 2007 • Fiscal Year 2007-2008, Periods 7-12, Jan 2008-June 2008 • Fiscal Year 2010-2011, Periods 1-6, July 2010-Dec 2010 • Fiscal Year2010-2011, Periods 7-12, Jan 2011-June 2011 • Fiscal Year 2011-2012, Periods 1-6, July 2011-Dec 2011 • Fiscal Year 2011-2012, Periods 7-12, Jan 2012-June 2012 Bonds (Disposal + 7 years after audit)
• Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2006: Wells Fargo Monthly Statements for Bond Fund, Reserve Fund, Redev Fund, Redemption/Sinking Fund, October-December 2011 Bank R'econciliations (7 years after audit)
• Payroll and Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), FY 2011-2012 Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: __ K_a"'-y.._V_in ___ s~o~n- 10-13-21 Department Head __ R~ya_n_S_m_it_h __
City Clerk/Custodian of Records -----"A"""n"'""g""'e""'"la=--c..lv'-'e"""y_ City Attorney ______ J~o_h~a~n~na~C~a_n~la~s __ _

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fin 31 Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
Journal Entries (7 years after audit)
• Fiscal Year 2006-2007, Periods 1-6, July 2006-Dec 2006 • Fiscal Year 2006-2007, Periods 7-12, Jan 2007-June 2007 • Period 13, Fiscal Year 2006-2007
• Fiscal Year 2002-2003, Periods 1-6, July 2002-Dec 2002 • Fiscal Year 2002-2003, Periods 7-12, Jan 2003-June 2003 • Period 13, Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: __ K_a"""y~V""'-in=s-=-o'-'-n_ 10-13-21 Department Head __ R~y~a_n~S_m_i_th __
City Clerk/Custodian of Records --'A~ng~e"""l=a....;..lv-'--'e::;...y..._ City Attorney -----"'J~o~h=a'-'-n'-'-na=---.cC~a~n~la~s __ _

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337 Fin 32 Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
Journal Entries (7 years after audit)
• Fiscal Year 2000-2001, Periods 1-13, July 2000-June 2001 • Fiscal Year 2001-2002, Periods 1-13, July 2001-June 2002 Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: __ K_a_y~V_in_s_on __ 10-13-21 DepartmentHead_~R~y~a~n~S=m..;..;.;..=ith-'--_
City Clerk/Custodian of Records __ A_n ___ g~e~la_l_ve"'-y.___ City Attorney -----=-J-=-o'--"ha=n..:..:.n=a;;_C=-a=n=l=as=-----

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, CCP 337, IRS Reg §31.6001-1(e)(2), R&T §19530; 29CFR 516.5 - 516.6, 29USC 436 Fin 33
Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
Journal Entries (7 years after audit)
• Fiscal Year 2008-2009, Periods 1-6, July 2008-Dec 2008 • Fiscal Year 2008-2009, Periods 7-12, Jan 2009-June 2009 • Period 13, Fiscal Year 2008-2009
Payroll (7 years after audit)
• W-2, 941 Adjustment, 2012
• Employer's Quarterly Tax Withholding, 1st Quarter 2012 • Employer's Quarterly Tax Withholding, 2nd Quarter 2012 • Employer's Quarterly Tax Withholding, 3rd Quarter 2012 • Employer's Quarterly Tax Withholding, 4th Quarter 2012 • Payroll Tax, 941-C, 2012
• W-2/W-3, Tax Withholding, Corresp. 2011-2012
• W-2, Tax Withholding, 2008-2010
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: __ K_a_y_V_in_s_o_n_ 10-1 4-21 Department Head __ R~ya_n_S_m_it_h __
City Clerk/Custodian of Records __ A_n_g..,_e~la~lv~e'-'y_ City Attorney ___ ...,cJ~o_h~a~n_na_C_a_n_la_s __ _

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, 26 CFR 16001-1, Fin 35 Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
Budget (3 years after audit)
• Budget Adjustments & Transfers, FY 2012-2013
• Budget Reconciliation, General Account, FY 2012-2013
Bank Transfers & Reconciliations (7 years after audit)
• Bank Reconciliations, Payroll and LAIF, FY 2012-2013
• Bank Transfers, FY 2012-13
• Bank Reconciliations General Account, FY 2011-2012 (2 files) • Bank Transfers, FY 2011-2012
• Fiscal Agent Statements, FY 2011-2012
• Fiscal Agent Statements Reconciliations, FY 2011-2012 • Budget Transfers, FY 2011-2012
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: __ K_a""""y,__V_in~s~o~n_ 11-10-21 DepartmentHead __ R~ya_n_S_m_i_th __
City Clerk/Custodian of Records ---'A-"n"'"'g--'e"-'-la"'-'-'-lv'""'e'""'y_ City Attorney ---~J~o~h=a~n~na~C~a_n~la~s'-----

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages FIN City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, 26 CFR 16001-1, Fin4B Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Finance
Budget & Banking FY 2009-2010
• Bank Reconciliations, General Accounts (7 years after audit) • Budget Transfers (3 years after audit)
• Journal Entries, Periods 1-6 (7 years after audit)
• Journal Entries, Periods 1-7 (7 years after audit)
• Bank Transfers (7 years _o,.~er audit)
Records Prepared/ Inventoried By: Kay Vinson 11-17-21
Department Head Ryan Smith
City Clerk/Custodian ·~f Records _--'A--"'n_..g'"""'el=a~lv-"-ey..__ City Attorney -----"-Jo"-'-h=a=nn=a--'C~a_n=la=-s __

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages _CW, CS, CC ____ _ City Clerk- Legal Info, Gode Section: GC 34090, 26202.1, 54960.1(c)(1) Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Community Services
Public Art Proposals (Not Selected) (2 years)
• Tidal Rhythms by Peter Mitten, (slides) 12-12-2004
• Paul L. Nyerges Photography
• Mary Lynn Dominguez, 1-5 Interchange
• Stephen M. Wilkens, CDs, City Hall Gallery, 1-2013
• John Moore, Splash Furniture
• Cal Coast Academy & Susan Stone, City Hall Gallery , July & Aug., 2012 • Bill Wechter, Red Sand & CD
• David Wecker, 11-2-2012
• Environmental Painters: Joan Grine, Janet Finney, Sue Kessinger, Elizabeth Nickolson, Wes Farmer, Diane Dudek, Toni Williams, 10-18-11
• Sandra Chan is L. , Amazon Sisters Series, and Betsy Kopshina Schulz, 12-1-10 • Alber DeMatteis
• Donna Billick, 10-17-2002
• Art Proposals for Coastal Rail Trail, 12-15-2004
• Maps & Photos of Veteran's Memorial, 2005
• Coastal Rail Trail Sculpture Proposals, CDs, Art Tree by John Oleinik, Doug Snider, Faducci, Betsy Schultz-A Design Garden , Pelicano Del Sol by Polyte Solet & John Pak, Frank Manda, Melissa Ralston, Jim Trask, Archie Held Studio , Micajah Bienvenu , Tamao Nakayama/Hamid Maleki, Brennan Hubbell, Steven Maddy, Prem Makeig, Christopher Lee, Marlene Heitman, 2004-2008
• Painting Utility Boxes Proposal, Dennis Higgins, CD, Juliana Welch , 4-1-2013 • Entry Marker: Max DeMoss, Smyer Architecture, Ante Marinovic, The Allen Studios, Aeber de Matteis, 2009 Working Files Re. Public Art (2 years, superseded)
• Master Art Policy 2001-2006, Funding , Donations, Loans drafts, Master Plan, Priority Workplan FY 2007-2008 • City Examples of Art Programs, 2007
• Public Arts Committee/Commission working corresp., 2006-2007 • Matching Fund 4 Public Art Campaign , 2008
• Public Art Examples, 1986-2004
• Public Arts Advisory Committee agendas, 1996
• Public Arts Advisory Committee, agendas, corresp., working file, 1999 • Public Arts Advisory Committee working file, CD, 2000 • Public Arts Advisory Commission, agenda packet items, 2006 • Public Arts Advisory Commission , Commission responsibilities, agenda packet items, 2012-2013 • Public Arts Advisory Commission, agendas and agenda packet items, 2004-2005 • Public Arts Advisory Commission , agendas and agenda packet items, 2009-2011 Community Services - Programs (5 years)
Records Pre ared / Inventoried B
1-4-22
Date
1 µ5/2-L ~D=--=- e= a.:....: rt.:...:. m.:....: e...:... n:..:. t ...:... H.:....: e.:....: a.:....: d.:...--:D=-=- an'--'--'--K""in=gL __________ ~~~~:,.......a=:;;=::::;::::..-,;;,.__ ~~--~D~a~te~ _ ____.j Cit Clerk/Custodian of Records An
c:P--b
Date
Cit Attorne Johanna N. Canlas Si nature:

Form RM-4 Page 1 of 2
... LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages _CW, CS, CC ____ _ City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC 34090, 26202.1 , 54960.1 {c){1) Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:
• Holiday Lighting Event, 2004
• Holiday Event, 2003
• Holiday Events, 2002
• Veterans Memorial, 2005
Citizen Interest Forms (2 years)
• Volunteers/Interest Forms, 1993-2002
Photos
• Copies from electronic media including train station, flowers , Cedros, steps at bluffs, library construction, Council chambers, Farmers market, coastal colors, secret garden , CDs: Plaza boxes, Game On; 2001-2013 Records Pre ared / Inventoried B Ka Vinson
Cit
Cit Johanna N. Canlas
Form RM-4
Si nature:

Signature:
1-4-22
Date
Date
Date
Date

Page 2 of 2 ends

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

City Manager Records (Assistant)
Correspondence/Working Papers (2 years)
• General Corresp. 2012-2016; Copies of CalPERS Actuarial Valuation/Contract Amendment, 2010-2013; Copy - CalPERS Contract Amendment Request, 2010; Alliant Insurance Info., 2016; Conference materials 2016-17; copy Investment Report by Chandler Asset Mgmt, 2016; invoice verification 2015-2016 • Contracts - copies; Beacon Award, 2013-2016
• Public Arts Commission agendas and materials, 2016
• PERS: Corresp. And Contract Amendment Information, 1996-1997 • Visitor Center Services, 2016
• Parks & Recreation Commission agendas, information copies, 2016 • Climate Action Commission notes and information, 2014-2016 • Cox Communications, Effective Competition and Case before Federal Communications Commission, 2008 • Friends of the Solana Beach Library, 2005-2007
Community Grants (4 years)
• Submittals, FY 2010-2011
Complaints (3 years)
• 2005-2008
Proposals (2 years)
• Shorelines RFP Responses, 2008-2009
Disaster Preparedness Plans (until superseded)
• San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation_Plan and Attachment "A", March 2004 • North Zone Fire Effectiveness and Regionalization Study, Opportunities for Cooperative Effort, Emergency Services Consulting, Inc., March 2005
• North County Transit District Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft, January 30, 2007 • Implementation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Year Two, San Diego County, 2006-2007 Correspondence/Working Documents/Copies (2 years)
Digital Media: CDs:
• Save Your City video, State budget impact on Cities by Joe Kellejian, 6-2009 • Council Meeting video copies with Regional Appointments: 12-17-02, 12-7-04, 12-14-05 • LA Colonia Master Plan Options copies, document and Power Point 11-12-08 • Solana Beach Fletcher Cove Park Inauguration video, 6-16-07 (duplicate copy) • Master Arts Plan, Goals, Catalog , 9-07
• 2005 Community Grant Program, Staff Reports, Reso copies Records Pre ared / Inventoried B
De artment Head Dan Kin
Cit Clerk/Custodian of Records An
Cit Attorne Johanna N. Canlas Si nature:

Form RM-4
1-3-22
Date

Page 1 of 2 ends

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages _MS, CW ____ _ City Clerk- Legal Info, Code Section: GC 34090, CCP 340.5, HUD 2228.2 rev-3, 7 CFR 3016.42, 24 CFR 85.42 & 570.502(b), 29 CFR 97.42, CP §§338 et seq., 340 et seq., 342, GC §§946.5, Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:
• UCSD TV - The Making of Place video: Solana Beach, 9-2007 (duplicate copy) • SB Bulletin Board Demo video, 7-2007
• Cultural Tourism PowerPoint presented by Victoria Hamilton, Comm. For Arts & Culture, 2008 • Cliff Street Bridge Groundbreaking video, 2-28-07 (duplicate copy) • Logos: Village Walk jpeg, Cedros Design District doc, Lomas Santa Fe Plaza & Gardens jpeg; SB Towne Centre jpeg, 2008 (duplicate, copied to P Drive: CM, City Logos)
• U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Adelphia Communication Corp. 1999-2006 • Progressive Business Conferences: Keys to Improve Citizen Services Top User Tasks audio training, 8-4-2009 DVDs:
• Shark Attack Breaking News, audio/video 4-25-08 and 4-25 thru 4-28 (duplicate copies) Mini Cassettes:
• Fletcher Cove Park opening, video camera footage, 6-16-07 • Cliff St. Bridge Groundbreaking, video camera footage, 2-28-07 Pictures on 3 ½ " Floppy Disks
• Secret Garden Gateway 11, Flowers, Steps N Bluffs
• Secret Garden I, Cedros 9, Feather Acres
• Tidepools I, Solana Station & Cedros, La Colonia CC, Civic & Historic Museum & Library Const. • Fire Station, Farmers Market
• Coastal Colors, Cedros 3
• Nursery, Steps, Horses
Records P " ~ '
"'-._,
' '
Cit Attorne Johanna N. Canlas Si na1Ure: ~ Form RM-4
1-3-22 ..... Date
D'ate
' >ate :,
\
,. Date

Page 2 of 2 ends

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages City Wide City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090
Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

LEGAL DEPT Correspondence Files (2 years)
• Corresp. (Brewer) 1998-2003
• Corresp. (Hentschke) 1987-1997
• Chron. Corresp. (Brewer) 2002-2004
• Corresp. 2005-2007

ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
• Working File (Protzman), 2007-2010 (2 years)
• Working File Recreation, 2008-2015 Budget, Special Events 2006-2010 invoices & info, Leave Requests 2009- 2014 (2 years)
• Financial Working File/Duplicate Printouts/Copies: Financial Reports and Bank Statements 2012; Financial Reports 2007; Financial Reports 2015; Financial Reports and Bank Statement 2010, Annual Employer Statement from Sacramento 2010, Cal PERS Benefit Formula & contribution Rates for New Members Effective 1-1-13, Corresp. Audit/assessments/Caltrans/misc. 2005-2010, Corresp. Implementation of Ord. 18 1986, Corresp. Re.

Compliance with Reporting Requirements 2000-1 & 2001-2, Annual Street Report 2001-2 & Corresp. 2000-1 and 2001-2, Land & Water Conservation Fund Program info. 2008-2009, Traffic Control Quotes 2010-2012, MarkRoos Local Bond Pool Participants Reporting Guidelines 1999, Report CLEEP Expenditures 2001-2, Solar Financing District info 2009 (2 years)
o Purchase Order misc. copies 2003-2012 (7 years after audit) o US Bank credit card statement 2009 (7 years after audit) o Invoices virtual assistant/website/temporary personnel services, 2009-2013 (7 years after audit) • Plastic bag working file info and corresp. (2 years)
• Waste/trash services working file & corresp. (2 years) • Storm water working file and corresp. (2 years)
Records Pre ared / Inventoried B A Ka Vinson
De artment Head Dan Kin
Cit Clerk/Custodian of Records
Johanna N. Canlas Si nature:

Form RM-4
12-2-21
Date
i1/?z
Date
Date

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages CW, CC, Fire City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: G.C. 34090
Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

CITY MANAGER DEPT.

Working Files/Corresp.: (2 years)
• Finance Working Papers, 2008-2009 Budget worksheets, 2008-2009 • Wi-Fi Proposals: Azulstarffropos; Surf & Turf Wireless, 2007 • Wi-Fi Info, Go Networks, Solutrea, 2006-2008
• Wi-Fi working papers, 2007
• Wi-Fi RFQ, working papers, corresp., 2007
• Farmers Market, working papers, corrsp. 2007-2008
• Workers' Compensation Solution for Cities to Reduce Rising Costs by Keenan & Associates information • Code Enforcement Procedure Manual, 2002
• Shop Solana First, 2008-2009
FIRE DEPT .
. Working Files: (2 years)
,· • Redevelopment, 1989-90
• Prevention Monthly Reports (RSF & SOL JPA), February & June, 1985 • Hydrant Draft Letter, undated
• Fire Drill Reports: Skyline and Solana Pres. , 1985-1986 • Plan Check Reports, Jan.-June, 1989 and July-Dec. 1989 • Plan Check Reports, 1988
• Plan Check Reports, 1987
• Plan Check Reports, Prior to 1988
Records Pre a red I Inventoried B : Ka Vinson
De artment Head _Gre o Wade Si
Cit Clerk/Custodian of Records An Si
Cit Johanna N. Canlas Si nature:

Form RM-4

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages cw, cc City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §§34090, 54960. Hc)(1) Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

CITY CLERK FILES
Outside Organizations: (2 years)
• League of California Cities (LCC}, 100th Anniversary Conference, 1998 • LCC Bulletins, 1992-1994
• LCC, Executive Committee Meetings, 2000-2003
• LCC, City Clerk Dept. Newsletter, 1992
• LLC, Publication of California City Halls, 1986
• LCC, Priority Focus Newsletter, 2002
• SB Chamber of Commerce, Business Beat Newsletter, 1996-2001 • Public Utilities Commission Notices , Compliance Applications, and Requests for Energy Efficiency Programs, 1991- 1999
• CA Regional Water Quality Control Board agendas and copy of 1998 agreement, 1998-2004 • CA Regional Water Quality Control Board agendas, 2013 • CA Alcoholic Beverage Commission corresp., copies of licenses, 1991-1999 • San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publications, correspondence, 1998-2003 • SAND AG, Air transportation, presentation and publication, 2000 • SAND AG, Pedestrian Planning , 2002; Region 2020 done in 2001 ; Smart Growth Report, 2001 • SANDAG, Overall Work Program publication and corresp. , 1989 • Santa Fe Irrigation District, agenda packets, 2000-2002 • Santa Fe Irrigation District, agenda packet and copy of presentation to Council, 2002 Boards & Commissions: Citizens Advisory formed by Council (2 years) • View Assessment Commission Agendas, 2007-2019
• Climate Action Commission Agendas, 2016-2019
• Public Safety Commission Agendas, 2009-2015
Records Prepared / Inventoried By: A. Kay Vinson
Department Angela Ivey
City Clerk/Custodian of Records Angela Ivey, City Clerk City Attorney Johanna Canlas, City Attorney
Form RM-4 Page 1 of1

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages CW/MS City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: G.C. 34090
Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

MARINE SAFETY RECORDS
Working Files/Corresp.: (2 years, except as noted)
• Lost and Unclaimed Property Procedures, 1988-1989
• Misc.: Statistical Reports (10 yr.), Corresp. , Trauma Kit Checklist, 1988-1989 • Encinitas Lifeguard Contract corresp., working file, equipment inventories, budget (5 years), 1987-1991 Working Files/Corresp.: (2 years, except as noted)
• Mexican Independence Day, 1989-1990
• Lomas Santa Fe Grade Separation Opening Ceremony, ''The Big Dig" with 3.5 disk, 9-15-1990 HISTORICAL??? • Surtrider Foundation: "Think Blue, Surt the Water Highway 101, Past and Present" educational video, 1999-2000 • Community Bulletin Board Project with 5 ¼" disk, 2005 • "Shorelines" Info, 1997-1998
• Linear Park Draft Master Plan/Design/Funding, Adopt a Tree Program, 1995-1998 • Long Term Disability Insurance, 1989-90
• Loss Control Report (7 years after audit), 1995
• Loss Control Survey Information, 1995-1998
• Low-Moderate Income Housing Project, 1991
• Maintenance of Equipment: American Mailing & Pitney Bowes, (Life + 5 years) 1986-2000 • Maintenance of Landscape - Ponderosa, (Life+ 5 years) 1987-1989 • Maintenance of Toshiba Copier at Fire Dept., (Life + 5 years) 2000-2001 • Maintenance of Xerox Copies, (Life+ 5 years) 1986-1995 • Management Training - Dept. Head Team Building, 1991
• Marine Safety:
o Misc. Chron. File, Corresp., 1987-1998
o Accident Forms & Reporting Procedures, 1989
o Oil Spill Awareness Training, 1990
o Water Quality Testing, 1994
o Jr. Lifeguard Files, 1987-1998
• Mello Roos Financing, 1993-1994
• Memorandum of Understanding, Firefighters - Other Cities, 1987-1990 • Memorandum of Understanding, Solana Beach Firefighters Assn., Corresp. 1989-1997

CITY MANAGER/PUBLIC ARTS
Working Files/Corresp:
• Art Submittals: 1) Pixel Perteet Images, Daniel Knighton Photographer, CD, 2006; Hand/Eye fotos and sculptures postcard, 2003; • Solana Beach Sun, article "Artists come first in City gallery", 11-9-07 • City Hall Gallery Art Shows & Proposals, 1997-2001
• Shorelines Newsletter Printing and Newsletter Examples, 2000-2001 • CALAA Convocation 2000
• Grants Workshop/Opportunities, 2003
• Art Submittal by K. Cartwright, undated
Records Pre ared I Inventoried B :

De artment Head Jason Shook Si
Cit Clerk/Custodian of Records An ela Ive Si
Cit Attorne Johanna N. Canlas Si nature:

Form RM-4

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages _MS, CW ____ _ City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC 34090, CCP 340.5, CP §§338 et seq., 342, GC §§946.5 Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Marine Safety Records
Incident Reports (medical & non-medical) (5 years)
• 1999 * 2011
• 2000 * 2012
• 2001 * 2013
• 2004 * 2014
• 2007 * 2015
• 2008 * 2016
• 2010
• Incident Reports, 1988-1991
Incident Statistics (10 years)
• 1987-1992
Complaints (3 years)
• From Citizens, 1987-2005
Correspondence (2 years)
• 1988-1993
Standard Operating Procedures (superseded+ 3 years)
• 1987-1990
Department Payroll copies (2 years)
• Timesheets, reports, leave balances, 2017-2018
12-20-21
Records Pre ared I Inventoried B : Ka Vinson
De artment Head Jason Shook
Cit Clerk/Custodian of Records
Johanna N. Canlas Si nature:

Form RM-4 Page 1 of 1

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages _MS, CW ____ _ City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC 34090, CCP 340.5, Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Marine Safety Records
Department Payroll copies (2 years)
• Timesheets, reports , leave balances, 2019
Department Budget working papers (2 years)
• 2016-2017
Correspondence (2 years)
• General, 2019
• Special Event Routing Slips, 2019-2019
• San Diego Regional Alert, 2018
Incident Reports (medical & non-medical) (5 years)
• 1998 *1999
• 2000 photos *2001
• 2002 *2003
• 2004 *2005
• 2006 *2007
• 2008 *2009
• 2010 *2011
• 2012 (NO 2013) *2014
• 2015 *2016
Records Pre ared / Inventoried B :

De artment Head Jason Shook
Cit Clerk/Custodian of Records
Johanna N. Canlas
Form RM-4
Si nature:
12-20-21

Page 1 of 2 ends

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
Code Enforcement
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages _Code Enforcement_ City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, H&S §11361.5, PC §802, PC §§187, 800 et seq.

Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Closed "Code Enforcement" Cases, A-V, 1997-1999
Records Prepared /
Inventoried By: ______ A Kay Vinson. ___ _ 12-7-21
Date l
,----------------------------- ~ - - b------·------ ·-j OJ /2.c..(~t--j ' Date ! Department Head __ Daniel Welte _____ _ Signatur !-----------------..................... -... - ...... -.. . '
City Clerk/Custodian of Records __ Angela Ivey __ _ Signatur /-- fl ---?-~ Date i
City Attorney ___ Johanna Canlas Signature: ___ ,:.__.1..--_.:::...-=-~ -~ ,i.~~~ ~ I ----- Form RM .. 4 Page 1 of 1

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
Code Enforcement
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages _Code Enforcement_ City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, H&S §11361.5, PC §802, PC §§187, 800 et seq.

Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Closed "Code Enforcement" Cases:
• Massage Technician Establishment, 8. Zack, 2001
• Secondhand Dealer Permit, Athlete's Edge, 1999
• Solicitors Permit, National Ice Cream, 2000
• Solicitor's License, United States Mission, 2000
• Taxi Operator Permit, Bill's Cab (Transit Capital Corp.) 1999 • Taxi Permit, Blue Taxi, W. Hopper, 1998
• Taxi Operator Permit, Pinky Cab Company, Inc., 2000
• Taxi Operator Permit, SON Express Cab, 1999
• 330 Barbara, Illegal Dumpster, 2001
• 124 E. Cliff, Handicapped Parking, 2001
• 833 S. Cedros Ave., vehicle storage, complaint, 2001
• 742 Genevieve #P, Business Certificate, 2001
• 346 Glencrest Dr., drain pipe encroachment, 2001
• 742 Seabright Ln., substandard housing, 2001
• Closed Code Enforcement Cases, 1998-2002
!
J City Clerk/Custodian of Records _Angela Ivey ___ _ Signat ···-·-----·-----·····•-··············-·•·-·•·-······- ·-···········-·---------- l
l City Attorney ______ Johanna Canlas
Form Rfvl-4 Page 1 of 1

LIST OF RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED
Code Enforcement
The records listed below are scheduled to be destroyed, as indicated on:

List reference pages of Retention Schedule Sections/Pages _Code Enforcement_ City Clerk - Legal Info, Code Section: GC §34090, H&S §11361.5, PC §802, PC §§187, 800 et seq.

Documents Below Have Been Reviewed and Approved For Destruction:

Closed "Code Enforcement" Cases
Solicitor Permits/Licenses:
• Calpirg, 1998
• Lunchman's Paradise, 1993
• Magic Pictures, 1995
• M & L Vehicle Catering, 1992
• Mobiltronics, W. Peterson, Jr., 1996
• Morning Break Food Vending, 1992
• New Line Promotions, 1996
• N. O'Hara Co., 1988
• Primerica Financial Services, 1994
• Real Meals on Wheels, T. Cunefare, 1996
• Romero's Produce, 1997
• D.S. Furniture, B. Smith, 1989
• Tortilleria Mexico, S. & J. Annett, 1987 & 1995
• Tropical Ice Cream Truck, J. Salazar, 1995
• Unique Real Estate Co., D. Severson, 1988
• United Children's Fund, 1997
• Vista Industrial Catering, R. Kastan, 1990
• Access to Justice Foundation, Voter Revolt, 1995
• Diablo Express, WW Industries, 1995
Entertainment Establishments:
• Lawyers Title, 1998
• Encore, W. Tatman, 1999
Massage Technician:
• S. Broussard, off premise, 1999
• W. Chung, off premise, 1999
• P. Higgins, 1998
• C. Knickerbocker, 1998
• K. Murrel, 1999
• J. O'Kelly, 1998
• K. Perrin, 1998
• P. Sheehan, 1999
• K. Trout, off premise, 1998
• Skin Vital, L. Wasson, 1998
Secondhand Dealers Permit, The Antique Warehouse, 1999
Taxi Cab Licenses:
• Bill's Cab Company, Inc., 1998
• Encinitas/Del Mar Yellow Cab, 1998
• Matrix Cab, 1996
Excessive False Security Alarm Notices, 1997-2001
I Records Prepared /
: Inventoried By: -----~A Kay Vinson ___ _ i
I Department Head ______ Daniel Welte
I
City Clerk/Custodian of Records _Angela Ivey __ _
City Attorney ______ Johanna Canlas
Forrn Rfvl -4
12-7-21
Date
e0r/z_clz-C
Date
,,,. z-d >
Date

Page 1 of 1 ends

COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.5.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office
SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Resolution 2022-021 Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
BACKGROUND:

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, or Initiative 21-0042A1 (Initiative), would amend the California Constitution to restrict the ability of the state, counties, other local agencies, and the electorate to approve or collect taxes, fees, and other revenues. The Initiative would require voter approval of all state taxes, would further restrict local fee authority by limiting it to the “minimum amount necessary” to provide government services, and would require voter approval for local measures such as franchise fees. Its provisions would make it easier to challenge local revenue measures by increasing the burden of proof on local agencies while disallowing an agency’s characterization of a measure from being considered in court.

The proposed constitutional initiative is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable, an association comprised of the largest and wealthiest corporations in California, including oil, insurance, banks and drug companies. The Initiative is opposed by a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates and businesses. The League of California Cities (League) is requesting that cities oppose the Initiative and characterizes it as a “deceptive proposition that allows major corporations to avoid paying their fair share and evade enforcement when they violate environmental, health and safety laws”.

This item is before the City Council to consider adopting Resolution 2022-021 (Attachment 1) opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

February 9, 2022
Citywide Traffic Calming Measures

Page 2 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION:

The League has requested local governments join the broad coalition in opposition of the Initiative. The League has distributed a fact sheet (Attachment 2) that details why the Initiative, if passed, would be detrimental to local governments, which includes:
• Giving Wealthy Corporations a Major Loophole to Avoid Paying their Fair Share - Forcing Local Residents and Taxpayers to Pay More
• Allowing Corporations to Dodge Enforcement When They Violate Environmental, Health, Public Safety and Other Laws
• Jeopardizing Vital Local and State Services
• Opening the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits, Bureaucracy and Red Tape that Will Cost Taxpayers and Hurt Our Communities
• Undermining Voter Rights, Transparency, and Accountability According to the League, the measure would limit the voters’ input, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold state and local law violators accountable.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

Opposition of a ballot initiative is not a project under CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

According to the League’s fiscal analysis (Attachment 3), if the Initiative is passed by the voters, it will result in, among other things:
• Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril resulting in related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use
• Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative • Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements
• The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and commercial development
February 9, 2022
Citywide Traffic Calming Measures

Page 3 of 3 ends

• Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services WORK PLAN:

NA
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Deny Staff recommendation and provide direction.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-021 opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
_________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-021

2. League of California Fact Sheet

3. League of California Fiscal Analysis

4. League of California Legal Analysis
RESOLUTION 2022-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO OPPOSE INITIATIVE
21-0042A1 THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; and WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and WHEREAS, the measure makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities.

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

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City of Solana Beach opposes Initiative 21-0042A1; and

3. That the City of Solana Beach will join the NO on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state; and

4. That the City Council directs staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].

Resolution 2022-21
Opposition of Initiative 21-0042A1

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2022 at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk Stop the Corporate Loopholes Scheme
Deceptive Proposition Allows Major Corporations to Avoid Paying their Fair Share and Evade Enforcement when they Violate Environmental, Health & Safety Laws An association representing California’s wealthiest corporations — including oil, insurance, banks and drug companies — is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot. Their measure would create major new loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities; while also allowing corporations to evade enforcement when they violate environmental, health, safety and other state and local laws. Here’s why a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses oppose the Corporate Loophole Scheme:

Gives Wealthy Corporations a Major Loophole to Avoid Paying their Fair Share - Forcing Local Residents and Taxpayers to Pay More • The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources – shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more.

Allows Corporations to Dodge Enforcement When They Violate Environmental, Health, Public Safety and Other Laws
• The deceptive scheme creates new loopholes that makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.

Jeopardizes Vital Local and State Services
• This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
• It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services and more. • It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities and more.

Opens the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits, Bureaucracy and Red Tape that Will Cost Taxpayers and Hurt Our Communities
• The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services.

Undermines Voter Rights, Transparency, and Accountability • This misleading measure changes our constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure.
• It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.
• It would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent.

CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
 Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
 Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.  The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.

1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.  Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through November 8, 2022 would be void after November 9, 2023.
 Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes at additional cost to taxpayers.
 Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2022) that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2023).
o If past election patterns are an indication, dozens of tax and bond measures approving hundreds of millions of annual revenues may not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment.

Most will be taxes without a specific end date. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, measures not in compliance would need to be placed on a special election ballot for approval before November 9, 2023 or the tax will be void after that date. General tax measures would require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 7, 2022
– 2 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
 Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions for general taxes would, under current law, each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void after November 9, 2023.

1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk1 In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures for cities, counties, special districts and schools (95 in March and 198 in November). The approved measures enacted $3.85 billion in new annual taxes including $1.3 billion for cities, $302 million for counties, $208 million for special districts (fire, wastewater, open space and transit districts), and $2.037 billion for schools (including for school bonds).

Most tax measures go to the ballot during a presidential or gubernatorial primary or general election in an even year. However, some tax measures are decided at other times. During 2019, there were 45 approved tax and bond measures (24 city, 14 special district, 7 school) adopting $154.0 million in new annual taxes ($124.0 million city, $10.5 million special district and $19.2 million school).

Most tax and bond measures comply with the new rules in Initiative 21-0042Amdt#1 except:
 Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require additional measures in future years to extend the taxes further. Very few extensions of existing local taxes fail.  Majority vote general tax measures could not be accompanied on the same ballot with an advisory, non-binding measure as to use of tax proceeds.  Special taxes placed on the ballot via citizen initiative would require two-thirds voter approval.

Bond measures have fixed terms. Historically, about 20 percent of other tax measures have included specific durations (i.e. sunsets). Advisory measures as to use of revenues are uncommon. I do not expect the provisions of 21-0042A1 to have any substantial effect on passage rates. However, some 2022 approved measures would likely have to put back on the ballot.

Based on history, a reasonable estimate of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by 1 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices. 600
500
400
300
200
100
Local Tax and Bond Measures - California
Cities, Counties, Special Districts, Schools
Pass (iFail
.---1 ---.. I : ,--~ :
. ·.1.liil-.
---,
I I
I I
I I
-
r--,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 – 3 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
voters in 2022 and placed at risk by this initiative is at least $1.5 billion, including $1.0 billion from cities and $500 million from counties and special districts. 2 1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions In addition to service delays and disruption due to new tax revenues placed at greater legal risk, there will be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The deterrence of taxes for annexations will delay and deter municipal annexations.

2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual cost” test defined as “(i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service to the payor, and (ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In addition, subjects these same charges to a new, undefined, “reasonable” standard.
 Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.  Subjects a challenged fee or charge to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.  Prohibits a levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled, imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk3 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $1 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of this $1 billion, about $570 million is for special districts, $450 million is cities, and $260 million is counties.4
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

1. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.

2. Commercial franchise fees.

3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.

4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.

5. Document processing and duplication fees.

6. Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, public airport and harbor use fees.

7. Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

In addition to fees and charges, the measure puts fines and penalties assessed for the violation of state and 2 This does not include citizen initiative special tax approved by majority but not two-thirds. Because this approach is new, the number of these measures and amount of revenue involved cannot be estimated. 3 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts, summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 4 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison. – 4 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.

2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development. ***********
□ mc
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative No. 21-0042A1
January 21, 2022
Summary: The measure limits the voters’ input, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold state and local law violators accountable.

Limiting Voter Authority and Accountability
• Limits voter input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how local tax dollars should be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures. • Invalidates Upland decision that allows majority of local voters to pass special taxes. Taxes proposed by the Initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. All measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would be invalidated unless reenacted within 12 months.

Restricting Local Fee Authority to Provide Local Services • Franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property. The standard may significantly restrict the amount oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public property. Rental and sale of local government property must be “reasonable” which must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.”
• Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence.

Restricting Authority of State and Local Governments to Issue Fines and Penalties for Violations of Law.
• Requires voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA
CITIES
Restricting Local Tax Authority to Provide Local Services • Expanding existing taxes (e.g., UUT, use tax, TOT) to new territory (e.g., annexation) or expanding the base (e.g., new utility service) requires voter approval.
• City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. • New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time period. • Taxes adopted after January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
• All state taxes require majority voter approval.
• Prohibits any surcharge on property tax rate and allocation of property tax to state.

Other Changes
• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA
CITIES
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.6.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development
SUBJECT: Update on The City of Oceanside’s Planned Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project and
Approval of Resolution 2022-016 Adopting a Statement of Opposition to Constructing Devices That Could Interfere With The Natural Flow of Beach Sand
BACKGROUND:

This report is before the City Council to provide an update on Oceanside’s Planned Beach Sand Replenishment Project, which has the potential to interfere with the natural flow of sand, particularly southward down the coast towards the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas and Solana Beach. Staff is also seeking the City Council’s consideration of Resolution 2022-016 that would adopt a proposed statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand.

DISCUSSION:

In 2019, the Oceanside City Council directed their city staff to initiate a process to identify feasible solutions to protect the Oceanside coastline from erosion by either utilizing renourishment projects of beach suitable sands, construction of retention devices to reduce the loss of sand or a combination of both. The goal was to identify strategies that were environmentally sensitive, financially feasible and that had a reasonable chance of being approved through the regulatory permitting process.

In April 2020, the Oceanside City Council approved a professional services agreement with engineering consultant GHD, which then worked on a study evaluating alternatives to stabilize and enhance the beach widths within the City of Oceanside. At a workshop on August 11, 2021, the Oceanside City Council received a presentation on the resulting Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project Feasibility Analysis, as well as an accompanying staff report. The study area spanned the coastline, from the southern end of Camp Pendleton south to the southern jetty of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Section 2 of that study, Coastal Setting, states in part:

February 23, 2022
Oceanside Beach Sand Retention Device Update

Page 2 of 4 ends

The wave climate within the City is characterized by seasonal long-period swells generated by distant storms in the North Pacific and Southern Oceans. Southern swell arrives at Oceanside from the southwest through the spring and summer months and transports sand to the north (Figure 2-1). Larger North Pacific swell[s] approaching from the northwest and west during the fall and winter months transports sand to the south (Figure 2-2). Locally generated short-period wind waves can occur any time during the year and typically come from the west.

Waves are the dominant driver of sediment transport along Oceanside beaches.

The net longshore sediment transport patterns for Oceanside are accepted to be southern, although seasonal variations are common and depend on the swell direction. There are numerous estimates of the longshore sediment transport for Oceanside and within the Oceanside Littoral Cell, as shown in Table 2.1. These estimates are based on historic studies and have not been updated or field verified recently. However, amongst these studies there is general agreement that Oceanside experiences a net sediment transport to the south of 100,000 to 200,000 cubic yards (cy) per year.

GHD estimated the cost and the approach of future phases of the project and engaged the Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography to develop a scientific coastal baseline and monitoring plan. GHD also performed numerical modeling to predict how the alternatives could impact local and regional sand movement.

Additionally, the City of Oceanside held several meetings with resource agencies and stakeholders to understand any concerns and receive feedback on the alternatives being considered. However, neither City of Oceanside staff nor GHD consulted the other coastal cities as a stakeholder during the input-gathering process. Oceanside staff later indicated these omissions were inadvertent and committed to including other stakeholders in the next phase of the project.

Four alternatives for sand retention were outlined at the August 2021 Oceanside City Council workshop. Additionally, three sand bypass options were reviewed for their applicability and utility in addressing the erosion issues. A bypass system would transport pumped sand to city beaches via a network of underground pipelines. Of the four retention alternatives studied, groins, structures built perpendicular to the shore to restrict the movement of sediment, were ranked the highest based on the multi-criteria analysis of technical performance, financial analysis and environmental consideration.

The analysis document recommended a pilot project consisting of four groins and a sand bypass system. According to the analysis document, this alternative would entail construction of four, 600-foot long, mounds of rubble spaced 1,000 feet apart along the pilot area, which spans the coastline from the Oceanside Pier south to the outlet of the Buena Vista Lagoon.

February 23, 2022
Oceanside Beach Sand Retention Device Update

Page 3 of 4 ends

The proposed groins are to be perpendicular to the shore and extend seaward from the existing rock revetment. An estimated 300,000 cubic yards of sand would initially be deposited in the proposed groins field, with about half that much sand to be deposited in subsequent replenishments.

The Oceanside City Council voted to initiate the pilot project and directed staff to begin the associated design, permitting and environmental work. Mayor Sanchez, casting the lone dissenting vote, expressed doubt that the California Coastal Commission would approve the permits that would be necessary for the pilot project to move forward.

Mayor Sanchez, who previously served as a Coastal Commissioner, did not support the expenditure of funds on pursuing the design, permitting and environmental review of this alternative, considering it was unlikely to receive Coastal Commission approval because it interferes with the natural flow of sand down the coast. Mayor Sanchez instead favored the beach nourishment alternative.

There is a concern that the groins alternative has the potential to interfere with the natural flow of sand down the coast. The National Park Service’s article Coastal Engineering - Hard Structures: Groins and Jetties notes, “By design, these structures are meant to capture sand transported by the longshore current; this depletes the sand supply to the beach area immediately down-drift of the structure.” The City of Oceanside’s stated intent with the groins alternative was that it would be “adaptable and reversable” based on the results of scientific monitoring programs. If sand retention success is achieved with the initial four groins, however, more groins may be added to other sections of the Oceanside coastline in the future.

On October 20, 2021, the City of Oceanside publicly advertised a “Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Design, CEQA/NEPA Documentation & Permitting Phase for the Oceanside Sand Retention Project.” The request description reads in part:

The City of Oceanside’s Public Works Department is seeking Proposals from qualified firms specializing in coastal engineering ("Consultant") with experience in the design and permit processing of coastal engineering projects in the Southern California’s coastal zone, including extensive experience with community/stakeholder engagement efforts for large-scale, complex projects, preparation of CEQA/NEPA documents, and securing appropriate permits from all responsible agencies.

The due date for firms to submit proposals was December 7, 2021. The Oceanside City Council has not yet entered into an agreement with a qualified firm. Once a firm is selected and an agreement is executed, the next phase of the project is expected to take about two to four years. City of Oceanside staff plan to work with GHD to conduct additional public outreach in this next phase of the project before the final groin locations are determined.

February 23, 2022
Oceanside Beach Sand Retention Device Update

Page 4 of 4 ends

The California Coastal Commission, the Marine Corps’ Camp Pendleton, Surfrider Foundation and other stakeholders are expected to be invited to engage in the public outreach process. There will also be opportunities for municipalities to provide comments on the potential impacts from the project. On January 11, 2022, the City of Carlsbad adopted a similar resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand in Carlsbad.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

This is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

OPTIONS:

The following options are provided for the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand.

2. Do not adopt a resolution approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand.

3. Other action the City Council deems appropriate in relation to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2022-016 (Attachment 1) approving a statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
_______________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-016
RESOLUTION 2022-016

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY
COUNCIL’S STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO

CONSTRUCTING DEVICES THAT COULD INTERFERE

WITH THE NATURAL FLOW OF BEACH SAND
WHEREAS, on Oct. 9, 2019, the Oceanside City Council directed staff to initiate a process to identify feasible solutions to protect the Oceanside coastline from erosion by either utilizing renourishment projects of beach suitable sands, construction of retention devices to reduce the loss of sand, or a combination of both; and WHEREAS, in April 2020, the Oceanside City Council approved a professional services agreement with engineering consultant GHD, which then worked on a study evaluating alternatives to stabilize and enhance the beach widths within the City of Oceanside; and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2021, the resulting Beach Sand Replenishment and Retention Device Project Feasibility Analysis and a staff report were presented to the Oceanside City Council; and
WHEREAS, the study area spanned the coastline from the southern end of Camp Pendleton south to the southern jetty of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon; and WHEREAS, Section 2., Coastal Setting, of the analysis document, states in part:

The wave climate within the City is characterized by seasonal long-period swells generated by distant storms in the North Pacific and Southern Oceans. Southern swell arrives at Oceanside from the southwest through the spring and summer months and transports sand to the north...Larger North Pacific swell[s] approaching from the northwest and west during the fall and winter months transports sand to the south…Waves are the dominant driver of sediment transport along Oceanside beaches.

The net longshore sediment transport patterns for Oceanside are accepted to be southern, although seasonal variations are common and depend on the swell direction.

There are numerous estimates of the longshore sediment transport for Oceanside and within the Oceanside Littoral Cell…These estimates are based on historic studies and have not been updated or field verified recently. However, amongst these studies there is general agreement that Oceanside experiences a net sediment transport to the south of 100,000 to 200,000 cubic yards (cy) per year; and
WHEREAS, GHD estimated the cost and the approach of future phases of the project, and engaged the Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography to develop a scientific coastal baseline and monitoring plan; and
Resolution 2022-016
Statement of Opposition

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, GHD also performed numerical modeling to predict how the alternatives could impact local and regional sand movement; and WHEREAS, of the four retention alternatives studied, groins were ranked the highest - based on the multi-criteria analysis of technical performance, financial analysis, and environmental consideration; and
WHEREAS, the analysis document recommended a pilot project consisting of four groins and a sand bypass system, with a project area that area spanned the coastline from the Oceanside Pier south to the outlet of the Buena Vista Lagoon; and WHEREAS, the Oceanside City Council voted to initiate the pilot project and directed staff to begin the associated design, permitting and environmental work; and WHEREAS, there is a concern that the groins alternative has the potential to interfere with the natural flow of sand down the coast; and WHEREAS, the National Park Service’s statement on groins notes, “By design, these structures are meant to capture sand transported by the longshore current; this depletes the sand supply to the beach area immediately down-drift of the structure;” and WHEREAS, if sand retention success is achieved with the initial four groins, more groins may be added to other sections of the Oceanside coastline in the future; and WHEREAS, the next phase of the project is expected to take about two to four years and City of Oceanside staff plan to work with GHD to conduct additional public outreach before the final groin locations are determined; and WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, the Marine Corps’ Camp Pendleton, Surfrider Foundation and other stakeholders are expected to be invited to engage in the outreach process; and
WHEREAS, there will also be opportunities for City of Solana Beach staff to provide comments on the potential impacts from the project; and WHEREAS, this action and has been determined to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

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

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City of Solana Beach City Council’s statement of opposition to constructing devices that could interfere with the natural flow of beach sand is hereby approved.

Resolution 2022-016
Statement of Opposition

Page 3 of 3 ends

3. That the City Council of the City of Solana Beach hereby directs the City Manager to send a copy of this resolution to the Oceanside City Manager.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of February 2022 at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

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

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Request for a Development Review Permit and Structure Development Permit for a First-Story
Remodel and Addition and a New Second-Story Addition
to an Existing One-Story Single-Family Residence with an Attached Garage and Perform Associated Site
Improvements at 603 Glencrest Place (Case # DRP20-
016/SDP20-022; Applicants: Todd and April Johnson; APN:
263-270-22-00; Resolution 2022-014)
BACKGROUND:

The Applicants, Todd and April Johnson, are requesting City Council (Council) approval of a Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SDP) to construct a first-story remodel and addition and a new second-story to an existing onestory, single-family residence with an attached garage. The 17,385 square-foot lot is located at 603 Glencrest Place and is within both the Low Residential (LR) Zone and Scaled Residential Overlay Zone (SROZ).

The Applicants propose aggregate grading in the amount of 92 cubic yards. The highest point or elevation of new construction is proposed at 24.23 feet above the proposed grade with a pole height of 232.56 MSL. The tallest point of new construction is 24.64 feet above the proposed grade with a pole height of 226.65 MSL. The project meets two thresholds for the requirement of a DRP, including: 1) construction in excess of 60 percent of the maximum allowable floor area; and 2) construction of a second story that exceeds 35% of the floor area of the first floor. The project requires a SDP because the proposed development exceeds 16 feet in height above the existing grade.

The issue before the Council is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Applicants’ request as contained in Resolution 2022-014 (Attachment 1).

February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 2 of 11 ends

DISCUSSION:

The subject property is located on the south side of Glencrest Place at the corner of Glencrest Drive and Glencrest Place. The 17,385 square-foot lot is irregular in shape, fronting on Glencrest Place to the northeast, with Glencrest Drive to the west and residential properties to the north, east and south.

The topography of the subject site slopes down in the rear (south) of the residence to the rear property line with an approximately 13-foot grade differential. The topography of the front yard slopes down from Glencrest Place, south, towards the residence with an approximately 2-foot grade differential.

The site is currently developed with a 1,719 square-foot, one-story, single-family residence with an attached 153 square-foot garage storage space. The existing residence is structurally nonconforming in that a portion of the first floor encroaches into the required front yard by 3.75 inches. The Applicants propose a 438 square-foot addition and remodel to the existing first story. No modifications are proposed for the portion of the residence that encroaches into the front-yard setback. Proposed roof elements above the existing nonconforming wall would be supported and integrated into existing conforming structure located in the buildable area. In addition, the Applicants are proposing to construct a new 959 square-foot second-story addition, a new 586 square-foot attached garage and perform associated site improvements, which includes a 77 square-foot enclosed patio.

The existing 153 square-foot garage storage space would be converted to living area. A single-family residence is required to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces pursuant to Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Section 17.52.040 and the Off-Street Parking Design Manual (OSPDM). Since the parking spaces provided in the proposed garage would comply with the OSPDM, the project would qualify for a 400 square-foot floor area exemption. Therefore, the total proposed floor area would be 3,532 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area for the property is 4,814 square feet, pursuant to the SROZ (SBMC Section 17.48.040). The highest point/elevation of new construction is proposed at 24.23 feet above the proposed grade with a pole height of 232.56 MSL. The tallest point of new construction is 24.64 feet above the proposed grade with a pole height of 226.65 MSL. The project plans are provided in Attachment 2.

Table 1 (on the following page) provides a comparison of the zoning regulations with the Applicants’ proposed design.

February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 3 of 11 ends

Table 1

LOT INFORMATION
Property Address:

Lot Size (Net):

Max. Allowable Floor Area:

Proposed Floor Area:

Below Max. Floor Area by:

Max. Allowable Height:

Highest Point/Ridge:

Tallest Point/Ridge:

Overlay Zone(s):
603 Glencrest Pl
17,385 ft2
4,814 ft2
3,532 ft2
1,282 ft2

25.00 ft.

24.23 ft.
232.56 MSL

24.64 ft.
226.65 MSL
SROZ
Zoning Designation:
# of Units Allowed:
# of Units
Requested:

LMR (4 du/ac)
1 Dwelling Unit and 1
ADU
1 Dwelling Unit
Setbacks: Required Proposed
Front (N) 25 ft. 24.69 ft.*
Exterior Side (W) 10 ft. 41.40 ft.

Interior Side (E) 5 ft. 5.48 ft.

Rear (S) 25 ft. 51.98 ft.
*The existing structure is considered legal nonconforming and encroaches into the required front-yard setback 0.31 feet or

3.75 inches.

PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Floor Area Breakdown: Required Permits:

DRP: A DRP is required for a structure
that exceeds 60% of the maximum
allowable floor area, and for a second
story that exceeds 35% of the first floor
SDP: A SDP is required for a new
structure that exceeds 16 feet in height
from the existing grade
Existing First Floor:

Existing Playroom Converted to Living Area:

Existing Garage Converted to Living Area:

Proposed First Floor Addition:

Proposed Second Floor:

Proposed Garage Addition:

Exterior Enclosed Patio:
1,366 ft2
353 ft2
153 ft2
438 ft2
959 ft2
586 ft2
77 ft2
Subtotal: 3,932 ft2
Off Street Parking Exemption: - 400 ft2
Total Floor Area: 3,532 ft2
Proposed Grading: 92 cubic yards of aggregate grading (46 CY cut; 31 CY fill; 15 CY export) Proposed Parking: 2-Car Attached Garage
Proposed Fences and Walls: Yes
Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit: No
Proposed Accessory Structure: No
Existing Development:

One-story, single-family residence with an
attached garage
Development Review Permit Compliance (SBMC Section 17.68.40):

A DRP is required because the total proposed floor area exceeds 60% of the maximum allowable. The total floor area proposed is 3,532 square-feet and 4,814 square-feet is the maximum. Therefore, the proposal is 73% of the allowable floor area.

In addition to meeting the zoning requirements, the project must also be found in compliance with development review criteria. The following is a list of the development review criteria topics:

1. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses

2. Building and Structure Placement

3. Landscaping

4. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking, and Storage Areas February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 4 of 11 ends

5. Grading

6. Lighting

7. Usable Open Space
The following is a discussion of the findings for a DRP as each applies to the proposed project as well as reference to recommended conditions of approval contained in Resolution 2022-014. The Council may approve, or conditionally approve, a DRP only if all of the findings listed below can be made:

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

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

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

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

If the above findings cannot be made, the Council shall deny the DRP.

In addition to meeting zoning requirements, the project must also be found in compliance with development review criteria. The following is a discussion of the applicable development review criteria as they relate to the proposed project.

Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses:

The subject site is located within the Low Residential (LR) Zone. The surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of properties that are one- and two-story, single-family residences. The project site is currently developed with a one-story, single-family residence and an attached two-car garage. The Applicants propose to construct a firststory addition and remodel and a new second-story addition and perform associated site improvements.

As designed, the project is consistent with the permitted uses for the LR Zone as described in Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Sections 17.20.010 and 17.12.020, which permits one single-family residence. The property is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residential development with a maximum density of three (3) dwelling units per acre. The proposed development could be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 5 of 11 ends

the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.

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

Building and Structure Placement:

The site is currently developed with a 1,719 square-foot, single-story, single-family residence and an attached 153 square-foot garage storage space located on a flat building pad approximately two (2) feet lower than street elevation. The existing residence is structurally nonconforming in that a portion of the existing residence encroaches 3.75 inches into the required front-yard located along the northern portion of the lot. The Applicants propose to remodel the existing first floor and add 438 square feet to the first floor, construct a new 586 square-foot attached garage and a new 959 square-foot second story above the new garage. The Applicants propose to convert the existing garage storage and playroom to living area and construct a new 586 square-foot garage located towards the northern portion of the lot that would be accessed by Glencrest Place.

The LR Zone requires 25-foot front- and rear-yard setbacks, a 10-foot street side-yard setback and a 5-foot interior side-yard setback. The proposed residence is set back 24.69 feet from the front property line, 5.48 feet from the east side property line, 41.40 feet from the west side property line and 51.98 feet from the rear property line. As previously noted, the existing residence is legally nonconforming as the northern wall of the existing structure is located 24.69 feet from the north property line, where a 25-foot setback is required. Pursuant to SBMC Section 17.16.060 where a nonconforming structure exists on a lot (including an accessory structure on a residential lot), additional uses, structures, or structural internal and external additions may be established on the lot; provided such additional uses, structures, or structural additions do not increase the size or degree of the existing nonconformity. The existing front-yard encroachment will not be expanded or increased; therefore, the size and degree of the nonconformity is not being increased.

The additions are proposed to be located within the buildable area.

The 3,346 square-foot residence will consist of a living room, dining room, kitchen, pantry, laundry room, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a powder room and flex space on the first floor, and a primary suite, and office on the second floor. Pedestrian and vehicular access would be maintained on the northern side of the residence from a new driveway.

The SBMC parking regulations require two (2) off-street parking spaces, 9’ x 19’ clear, per single-family residence. The SBMC indicates that when required spaces are provided in a garage, up to 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. As designed, the proposed residence would provide two (2) parking spaces in the 586 square-foot garage; therefore, the project is afforded a 400 square-foot exemption and February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 6 of 11 ends

the total proposed floor area would be 3,532 square feet, which is less than the maximum allowable floor area for the lot pursuant to the SROZ. The maximum floor area calculation for this project is as follows:

0.500 for first 6,000 ft2 3,000 ft2

0.175 for 6,001 – 15,000 ft2 1,575 ft2

0.100 for 15,001 – 20,000 ft2 239 ft2
Total Allowable Floor Area: 4,814 ft2
The proposed project, as designed, meets the minimum required street-side, interior-side and rear-yard setbacks.

Neighborhood Comparison:

Staff compared the proposed project to 32 other properties within the Glencrest Place and Glencrest Drive neighborhood as shown on the following map:

The properties evaluated in this comparison are located in the LR Zone. The existing homes range in size from 1,326 square feet to 2,993 square feet, according to the County February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 7 of 11 ends

Assessor records. It should be noted that the County Assessor does not include garages, covered porches, unfinished basements, or accessory buildings in the total square footage. Accordingly, the building area of the proposed project has been calculated for comparison purposes by deleting the area of the garage as follows:

Project Gross Building Area: 3,932 ft2
Delete Garage Area: - 586 ft2
Project Area for Comparison to Assessor’s Data 3,346 ft2 Table 2 is based upon the County Assessor’s data and SanGIS data. It contains neighboring lot sizes, the square footage of existing development and the maximum allowable square footage for potential development on each lot.

Table 2
# Property Address Lot Size in
ft2(SanGIS)
Existing ft2
(Assessor)
Proposed /
Recently
Approved ft2
Max.

Allowable
ft2
Zone
1 417 GLENCREST DR 22,191 2,173 5,185 LR
2 418 GLENCREST DR 15,500 1,802 4,625 LR
3 425 GLENCREST DR 20,466 2,135 5,098 LR
4 426 GLENCREST DR 13,133 2,172 4,248 LR
5 433 GLENCREST DR 17,229 2,172 4,798 LR
6 434 GLENCREST DR 9,307 1,779 3,579 LR
7 441 GLENCREST DR 18,359 2,773 4,911 LR
8 442 GLENCREST DR 13,035 2,497 4,231 LR
9 448 GLENCREST DR 10,640 2,327 3,812 LR
10 449 GLENCREST DR 16,085 1,484 4,684 LR
11 455 GLENCREST DR 22,852 1,716 5,218 LR
12 457 GLENCREST DR 21,190 2,984 5,135 LR
13 458 GLENCREST DR 12,633 1,907 4,161 LR
14 465 GLENCREST DR 41,304 2,528 6,140 LR
15 473 GLENCREST DR 30,871 2,828 5,619 LR
16 510 GLENCREST DR 12,689 1,368 4,171 LR
17 516 GLENCREST DR 30,619 1,822 5,606 LR
18 521 GLENCREST DR 17,353 1,380 4,810 LR
19 522 GLENCREST DR 20,073 2,548 5,079 LR
20 527 GLENCREST DR 16,962 2,438 4,771 LR
21 528 GLENCREST DR 16,963 1,975 4,771 LR
22 603 GLENCREST PL 17,385 1,720 3,346 4,814 LR
23 604 GLENCREST PL 12,245 2,873 4,093 LR
24 609 GLENCREST PL 11,649 2,866 3,989 LR
February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 8 of 11 ends

25 610 GLENCREST PL 17,128 2,072 4,788 LR
26 615 GLENCREST PL 12,305 1,994 4,103 LR
27 616 GLENCREST PL 25,454 1,513 5,348 LR
28 621 GLENCREST PL 12,210 2,925 4,087 LR
29 622 GLENCREST PL 21,605 1,326 5,155 LR
30 627 GLENCREST PL 9,546 2,700 3,621 LR
31 628 GLENCREST PL 12,914 1,360 4,210 LR
32 633 GLENCREST PL 19,535 2,993 5,029 LR
33 634 GLENCREST PL 23,203 1,566 5,235 LR
Fences, Walls and Retaining Walls:

The Applicants propose to construct a new wood retaining wall not to exceed one (1) foot in height on the west side of the property. If the Applicants decide to modify any of the design of the proposed fences and walls or construct additional fences and walls, a condition of project approval indicates that they would be required to comply with SBMC

17.20.040(O) and 17.60.070(C) and (D).

Landscape:

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

17.56. According to SBMC Section 17.56.040, the regulations apply to modified irrigated landscaped areas that exceed 500 square feet. The proposed project does not include any new or modified irrigated landscaping.

Parking:

Grading:

The proposed grading quantities include 46 cubic yards of cut, 31 cubic yards of fill, and 15 cubic yards of export, for a total aggregate grading quantity of 92 cubic yards of aggregate grading.

Lighting:

Page 9 of 11 ends

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

Usable Open Space:

The project consists of the construction of an addition to a single-family residence; therefore, usable open space and recreational facilities are neither proposed nor required according to SBMC Section 17.20.040.

Structure Development Permit Compliance:

The proposed structure exceeds 16 feet in height above the existing grade, therefore, the project must comply with all View Assessment requirements of SBMC Chapter 17.63 and the Applicants were required to complete the SDP process. The Story Pole Height Certification was certified by a licensed land surveyor on March 31, 2021, showing a maximum building height of 24.64 feet above the existing and proposed grade. Notices were mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site establishing a deadline to file for View Assessment by January 14, 2022. No applications for View Assessment were received. Therefore, if the Council is able to make the required findings to approve the DRP, the SDP would be approved administratively.

As a condition of approval, a height certification prepared by a licensed land surveyor will be required prior to the framing inspection certifying that the highest point of new construction will not exceed 24.23 feet above the proposed grade or 232.56 MSL and the tallest point of new construction will not exceed 24.64 feet above the proposed grade or 226.65 MSL, which is the maximum proposed structure height reflected on the project plans.

In conclusion, the proposed project, as conditioned, could be found to be consistent with the Zoning regulations, and the General Plan. Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of the project in the attached Resolution 2022-014 for Council’s consideration based upon the information in the report. The applicable SBMC sections are provided in the italicized text and conditions from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments are incorporated in the Resolution of Approval. Additionally, as a condition of project approval, the Applicants would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a result of the Public Hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

Property Frontage & Public Right-of-Way Improvements:

The existing right-of-way along the property frontage along Glencrest Drive & Place is improved with non-standard asphalt berm, pavement, and landscaping. There is a recently constructed curb-inlet approximately 20-ft from the curb return. This structure will remain at its current standard condition. If approved, the Applicants will be required to February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 10 of 11 ends

remove the existing landscaping and construct a 6-10-ft wide D.G. pathway graded at 2% slope for walking and parking purposes. In addition, a mountable concrete curb for drainage will be required. If the project is approved, the proposed mountable curb will connect to the existing curb inlet structure with appropriate transitional sections to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The driveway approach will also be reconstructed as a condition of approval to meet ADA standards.

Public Hearing Notice:

Notice of the City Council Public Hearing for the project was published in the Union Tribune more than 10 days prior to the public hearing. The same public notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project site on February 11, 2022. As of the date of preparation of this Staff Report, Staff has not received any formal correspondence from neighbors or interested parties in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed project.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

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

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
WORKPLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
∙ Approve Staff recommendation adopting the attached Resolution 2022-014. ∙ Approve Staff recommendation subject to additional specific conditions necessary for the City Council to make all required findings for the approval of a DRP. ∙ Deny the project if all required findings for the DRP cannot be made.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

The proposed project could be found to be consistent with the General Plan and the underlying SBMC could be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a DRP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
February 23, 2022
DRP20-016/SDP20-022 Johnson
603 Glencrest Place

Page 11 of 11 ends

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
_________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-014

2. Project Plans
RESOLUTION 2022-014

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND

STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A

FIRST-STORY REMODEL AND ADDITION AND A NEW

SECOND-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY,

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE
AND PERFORM ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 603

GLENCREST PLACE, SOLANA BEACH
APPLICANT: Todd and April Johnson
CASE NO.: DRP 20-016, SDP20-022
WHEREAS, Todd and April Johnson (hereinafter referred to as “Applicants”) have submitted an application for a Development Review Permit (DRP) pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning), of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 17.72.030; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing on February 23, 2022, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the proposed application; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach found the application request exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the hearing.

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

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

2. That the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

3. That the request for a DRP and SDP to construct a first-story remodel and addition and a new second-story addition to an existing one-story, single-family residence with an attached garage. The 17,385 square-foot lot is located at 603 Glencrest Place and is within both the Low Residential (LR) Zone and Scaled Residential Overlay Zone (SROZ) is conditionally approved based upon the following Findings Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 2 of 13 ends

and subject to the following Conditions:

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

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

General Plan Consistency: The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation of Low Density Residential, which allows for three (3) dwelling units per acre. Further, the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.

Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The project is consistent with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) (SBMC 17.20.030 and

17.48.040), which delineates maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Permitted Uses and Structures (SBMC Section 17.20.020) which provides for uses of the property for a single-family residence. Further, the project adheres to all property development regulations established for the Low Residential (LR) Zone and cited by SBMC Section 17.020.030.

The project meets the minimum required street side-, interior side-, and rear-yard setbacks and does not exceed the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the property.

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

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

The subject site is located within the Low Residential (LR) Zone.

The surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of properties that are one- and two-story, single-family residences. The project site Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 3 of 13 ends

is currently developed with a one-story, single-family residence and an attached two-car garage. The Applicants propose to construct a first-story addition and remodel and a new second-story addition and perform associated site improvements.

As designed, the project is consistent with the permitted uses for the LR Zone as described in Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Sections 17.20.010 and 17.12.020, which permits one single-family residence. The property is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residential development with a maximum density of three (3) dwelling units per acre. The proposed development could be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy
residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated
neighborhoods.

As a condition of project approval, the Applicants would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
b. Building and Structure Placement: Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhances their intended use.

The site is currently developed with a 1,719 square-foot, singlestory, single-family residence and an attached 153 square-foot garage storage space located on a flat building pad approximately two (2) feet lower than street elevation. The existing residence is structurally nonconforming in that a portion of the existing residence encroaches into the required front-yard located along the northern portion of the lot. The Applicants propose to remodel the existing first floor and add 438 square feet to the first floor, construct a new 586 square-foot attached garage and a new 959 square-foot second story above the new garage. The Applicants propose to convert the existing garage storage and playroom to living area and construct a new 586 square-foot garage located towards the northern portion of the lot that would be accessed by Glencrest Place.

Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 4 of 13 ends

The LR Zone requires 25-foot front- and rear-yard setbacks, a 10- foot street side-yard setback and a 5-foot interior side-yard setback. The proposed residence is set back 24.69 feet from the front property line, 5.48 feet from the east side property line, 41.40 feet from the west side property line and 51.98 feet from the rear property line. As previously noted, the existing residence is legally nonconforming as the northern wall of the existing structure is located 24.69 feet from the north property line, where a 25-foot setback is required. Pursuant to SBMC Section 17.16.060 where a nonconforming structure exists on a lot (including an accessory structure on a residential lot), additional uses, structures, or structural internal and external additions may be established on the lot; provided such additional uses, structures, or structural additions do not increase the size or degree of the existing nonconformity. The existing front-yard encroachment will not be expanded or increased; therefore, the size and degree of the nonconformity is not being increased. The additions are proposed to be located within the buildable area.

The 3,346 square-foot residence will consist of a living room, dining room, kitchen, pantry, laundry room, two bedrooms, two
bathrooms, a powder room and flex space on the first floor, and a primary suite and office on the second floor. Pedestrian and vehicular access would be maintained on the northern side of the residence from a new driveway.

The SBMC parking regulations require two (2) off-street parking spaces, 9’ x 19’ clear, per single-family residence. The SBMC indicates that when required spaces are provided in a garage, up to 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. As designed, the proposed residence would provide two (2) parking spaces in the 586 square-foot garage; therefore, the project is afforded a 400 square-foot exemption and the total proposed floor area would be 3,532 square feet, which is less than the maximum allowable floor area for the lot pursuant to the SROZ.

The maximum floor area calculation for this project is as follows:

0.500 for first 6,000 ft2 3,000 ft2

0.175 for 6,001 – 15,000 ft2 1,575 ft2

0.100 for 15,001 – 20,000 ft2 239 ft2
Total Allowable Floor Area: 4,814 ft2
The proposed project, as designed, meets the minimum required street-side, interior-side and rear-yard setbacks.

Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 5 of 13 ends

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

The project is not subject to the water efficient landscaping regulations of SBMC Chapter 17.56. According to SBMC Section

17.56.040, the regulations apply to modified irrigated landscaped areas that exceed 500 square feet. The proposed project does not propose any new or modified irrigated landscaping.
d. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking and Storage Areas: Any development involving more than one building or structure shall provide common access roads and pedestrian walkways. Parking and outside storage areas, where permitted, shall be screened from view, to the extent feasible, by existing topography, by the placement of buildings and structures, or by landscaping and plantings.

SBMC Section 17.52.040 and the Off-Street Parking Design Manual require two (2) parking spaces for a single-family residence. The Applicants propose to construct a new 586 squarefoot attached garage, which would provide two (2) off-street parking spaces that are 9’ x 19’ and clear of obstruction, therefore, the proposed project would be in compliance with the parking standards.
e. Grading: To the extent feasible, natural topography and scenic features of the site shall be retained and incorporated into the proposed development. Any grading or earth-moving operations in connection with the proposed development shall be planned and executed so as to blend with the existing terrain both on and adjacent to the site. Existing exposed or disturbed slopes shall be landscaped with native or naturalized non-native vegetation and existing erosion problems shall be corrected.

The proposed grading quantities include 46 cubic yards of cut, 31 cubic yards of fill, and 15 cubic yards of export, for a total aggregate grading quantity of 92 cubic yards of aggregate grading. f. Lighting: Light fixtures for walkways, parking areas, driveways, and other facilities shall be provided in sufficient number and at proper locations to assure safe and convenient nighttime use. All light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 6 of 13 ends

intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding areas per SBMC

17.60.060 (Exterior Lighting Regulations).

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

The project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence, therefore, usable open space and recreational facilities are neither proposed nor required according to SBMC Section

17.20.040.

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

All required permits are being processed concurrently with the DRP.

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

As a condition of project approval, the Applicants will be required to obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

B. In accordance with Section 17.63.040 (Structure Development Permit) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code, the City Council finds the following:

The proposed structure exceeds 16 feet in height above the existing grade, therefore, the project must comply with all View Assessment requirements of SBMC Chapter 17.63 and the Applicants were required to complete the SDP process. The Story Pole Height Certification was certified by a licensed land surveyor on March 31, 2021, showing a maximum building height of 24.64 feet above the existing and proposed grade. Notices were mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site establishing a deadline to file for View Assessment by January 14, 2022. No applications for View Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 7 of 13 ends

Assessment were received. Therefore, if the Council is able to make the required findings to approve the DRP, the SDP would be approved administratively.

24.64 feet above the proposed grade or 226.65 MSL, which is the maximum proposed structure height reflected on the project plans.

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

A. Community Development Department Conditions:

I. The Applicants shall pay required Public Facilities Fees, as established by SBMC Section 17.72.020 and Resolution 1987-36.

II. Building Permit plans must be in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council on February 23, 2022 and located in the project file with a submittal date of February 09, 2022.

III. The highest point of new construction will not exceed 24.23 feet above the proposed grade or 232.56 MSL and the tallest point of new construction will not exceed 24.64 feet above the proposed grade or 226.65 MSL.

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

17.60.070 (Fences and Walls).

V. The Applicants shall obtain required CCC approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption as determined necessary by the CCC, prior to the issuance of a Grading or Building Permit.

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

Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 8 of 13 ends

VII. Any new exterior lighting fixtures shall be in conformance with the CityWide Lighting Regulations of SBMC 17.60.060.

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

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

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

B. Fire Department Conditions: Please note that this list provides detailed Fire Department requirements and is not meant to be an all-inclusive plan check list of the Fire Department comments.

I. ACCESS ROAD MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed improved width of not less than 20 feet; curb line to curb line, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Exception: Single-Family residential driveways; serving no more than two single-family dwellings, shall have minimum of 16 feet, curb line to curb line, of unobstructed improved width. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of not less than 75,000 pounds and shall be provided with an approved paved surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities.

II. OBSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION: All
roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width during construction and maintained free and clear, including the parking of vehicles, in accordance with the California Fire Code and the Solana Beach Fire Department.

III. ADDRESS NUMBERS: Approved numbers and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property from either direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast with their background, and shall meet the following minimum standards as to size: 4” high with a ½” inch stroke width for --
Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 9 of 13 ends

residential buildings, 8” high with a ½” stroke for commercial and multifamily residential buildings, 12” high with a 1” stroke for industrial buildings. Additional numbers shall be required where deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, building corners, and entrances to commercial centers.

IV. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM - ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS: Structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Sprinklers will be required due to the combination of significant modifications to the interior dwelling and additions.

V. CLASS “A” ROOF: All structures shall be provided with a Class “A” Roof covering to the satisfaction of the Solana Beach Fire Department.

C. Engineering Department Conditions:

I. The Applicant is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit in accordance with SBMC Section 11.20 for the following frontage improvements being done in the public right-of-way. The frontage improvements shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the occupancy of the proposed project:
a. Construction of the 9” X 9” X 12” concrete curb along the property frontage with transitions to the existing improvements on both ends to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Installation of the 6-10’ wide D.G area compacted and graded at maximum 2% towards the flow line for walking and parking purposes on Glencrest Drive and Glencrest Place to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Construction of the SDRSD driveway approach with 2:1 transitions to the proposed D.G. pathway.
d. Landscaping & irrigation within the public right-of-way.

II. The Applicants shall record a Hold Harmless Agreement prior to Final Inspection of the Building Permit. The document will hold the City of Solana Beach harmless for the storm drain and sewer systems on the Applicants’ property. The Applicants shall record the Hold Harmless Agreement document prior to Final Inspection of the Building Permit.

Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 10 of 13 ends

III. Submit proof to the Engineering Department that the required California Coastal Commission permits have been obtained prior to the recording of any lot line adjustments/plat maps, issuance of building permits and/or grading permits.

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

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

GRADING:

I. The Applicants shall obtain a Grading Permit in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code. Conditions prior to the issuance of a grading permit shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. The Applicants shall obtain a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

On-site grading design and construction shall be in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code.
b. The Applicants shall obtain a Soils Report prepared by a Registered Soils Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

All necessary measures shall be taken and implemented to assure slope stability, erosion control and soil integrity. The grading plan shall incorporate all recommendations contained in the soils report.
c. The Applicants shall provide a Drainage Report prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. This report shall address the design for detention basin and corresponding outflow system to ensure the rate of runoff for the proposed development is at or below that of pre-existing condition. All recommendations of this report shall be incorporated into the Preliminary Grading Plan. A detention basin easement(s) shall be recorded for maintenance of the detention basins by the property owner(s) in perpetuity, prior to Final Inspection of the Building Permit.
d. The Applicants shall show all retaining walls and drainage structures. Retaining walls shown on the grading plan shall conform to the San Diego Regional Standards or be designed by a licensed civil engineer. Engineering calculations for all Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 11 of 13 ends

designed walls with a surcharge and nonstandard walls shall be submitted at grading plan check. Retaining walls may not exceed the allowable height within the property line setback as determined by the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code. Contact the Community Development department for further information. e. The Applicants are responsible to protect the adjacent properties during construction. If any grading, construction activity, access or potential construction-related impacts are anticipated beyond the property lines, as determined by the City Engineer, the Applicants shall obtain a letter of permission from the adjoining property owners. All required letters of permission shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
f. The Applicants shall pay a grading plan check fee in accordance with the current Engineering Fee Schedule at initial grading plan submittal. Inspection fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the grading permit.
g. The Applicants shall obtain and submit grading security in a form prescribed by the City Engineer.
h. The Applicants shall obtain haul permit for import / export of soil.

The Applicants shall transport all excavated material to a legal disposal site.
i. The Applicants shall submit certification from the Engineer of Record and the Soils Engineer that all public or private drainage facilities and finished grades are functioning and are installed in accordance with the approved plans. This shall be accomplished by the Engineer of Record incorporating as-built conditions on the Mylar grading plans and obtaining signatures of the Engineer of Record and the Soils Engineer certifying the as-built conditions. j. An Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan shall be prepared by the Applicants. Best management practices shall be developed and implemented to manage storm water and nonstorm water discharges from the site at all times during excavation and grading activities. Erosion prevention shall be emphasized as the most important measure for keeping sediment on site during excavation and grading activities. Sediment controls shall be used as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on site.

Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 12 of 13 ends

k. The Applicants shall show all proposed on-site private drainage facilities intended to discharge water run-off. Elements of this design shall include a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities and identify any easements or structures required to properly convey the drainage. The construction of drainage structures shall comply with the standards set forth by the San Diego Regional Standard
Drawings.
l. Post Construction Best Management Practices meeting City and RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-001 requirements shall be
implemented in the drainage design.
m. No increased cross lot drainage shall be allowed.
n. Prior to obtaining a building permit, submit a building pad certification statement from a soils engineer and an engineer or land surveyor licensed in Land Surveying per SBMC 15.40.230E. o. The Applicants shall obtain the Grading Permit prior or concurrently to Building Permit issuance.

6. ENFORCEMENT: Pursuant to SBMC 17.72.120(B) failure to satisfy any and all of the above-mentioned conditions of approval is subject to the imposition of penalties as set forth in SBMC Chapters 1.16 and 1.18 in addition to any applicable revocation proceedings.

7. EXPIRATION: The DRP for the project will expire 24 months from the date of this Resolution, unless the Applicant have obtained building permits and have commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to completion. An extension of the application may be granted by the City Council, subject to SBMC Section 17.72.110.

8. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT: The Applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney’s fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify the Applicants of any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification. In the event of such election, the Applicants shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicants Resolution 2022-014
DRP20-016, SDP20-022 Johnson Residence

Page 13 of 13 ends

regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Applicants shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicants.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 23rd day of February, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk GENERAL NOTES 1. All notes li1ted below are applicable unless other\ldse noted within the construction documents or specifications
2 Change5 to the approved drawing5 .ind 5pecification5 shaH be made onty by owner approved addenda or chan~ order.

3. The contractor shall verify in the field all dimensions, elevations., flow lines and points of connection 'Mth adjacent properties; any cbcrepancies shall be called to the architecfs attention ~ore proceeding v.ith the work.
4 All dmensioM are to face of studs, masonry o, centerline unless noted otherwise Do not scale dr~ng5 Oimension5 prevail.

5. Dimensions shown at windows aIe to outside edge of .,..;ndowframe Rough opening dmensions are the responsibility of the contracto,_

6. Grid lines ~ign to face of studs, masonry or centerlines of columns unles5 otherwise noted.
7 The contractor 5hall determine the loc.11ion of utility services in the area pnor 10 excavation. The contractor shal assume responsibility for the protection of existing utilities and pavement 'Mthin the area of the work whethei indcated on the drawings or not, unless otherw,se noted. All utilities to be underground per utility company and local code requirements

8. Should any condition ilrise where the intent of the ckawin115 is in doubt where there is a dsc,epancy or ilppears to be an enor on the drawin115 between the drawings and the field condtlons, the a1chitect shall be nc:(ified as soon as reasonabty possible for proceduIe to be followed.

9. Vvhere details are not shOYrm for any part of the work, the construction shall be simila1 to other similar work, or contact the architect for clarification.

10. Workmanship throughout shall be of the best quality of the trade involved. 11 Each subcontractor is considered a specialist in his respective field and shall, prior to the submission of bid or performance of work, notify the !;Jenera! contractor or owner of any wo1k caned out on the drawings in his trade that cannot be fully guaromteed. The contractor and/or subcontractors shall be responsible for the appropriate "hook-up" to all utilities requi,ed to support the work.

12. Permits, fees, taxes, licenses, and deposits shall be paid for and obtained by each sub-contracto, and the i;Jeneral contractor as they relate to th~r woIk. 13 These drawings do not include necessary components fOf construction safety of a!! parties present on the job site. This i, the contractor's responsibility.

14. The contractor shall protect aq'acent properties and site work at all times

15. Do not make connection, brace, or suspend any construction or equipment f1om the roof deck or joists unless indcated on the drawings.
16 Af'roj penodic visits to the job site by the architect are for provisions of the contract documents , and are in no way a guarantee or insurance that the finished p,oject totally complie5 with the contract documents.

17. The architect does not assume any of the responsibility for methods or appliances used by the contractor, nor safety of the job in compliance with the laws and regulations.

18. All construction and demo~tion debris shaN be removed from a,ound the building5, the dnveways, sidewalks and landscaping at the end of each work day The driveways and sidewalks shall be swept clean.

19. The contractoI shall limit the site storai;Je of material, supplies or temporary structures to those areas as indicated on the drawin115 01 as approved by the owner's representative.

20. The contractor shall repair or replace any items damaged during demolition 01 construction indicated to be reused or to remain, at no cost to the owners.

FIRE NOTES 1 Buildings unde1going construction, alteration 01 d@molition shall be in accordance with the CFC Article 14.

2. Decorative materials shall be maintained in a flame tet.ardant condition.

3. At least one fire extinguisher with a minimum rating of 2a10bc shall be provided within 75 feet maximum travel dst.ance for each 6,000 squarl!!! feet Of poftlon thereof on each floor.
4 Complete plans and s~ifications for the fire alarm systems, fire--exting11shing systems, lncludng automaac sprinklers and wet and dry standpipes, halon systems and other special types of automatic fi1e-extinguishing systems: basemerit pipe inlets: and other fire-protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall be submitted to fire and life safl!!!ty for review and approval prior to installation

5. Fire-extinguishing systl!!!ms shall be installed in accordance with CBC 904 and comply with UBC standards 9-1 and 9-2.
6 All valves controling the water supply for automatic sprinldl!!!r systems and watl!!!r flow switches on all spnnlder systems shall be electrically monitored where the number of sprinklers is 20 or more.

7. Complete plans and specifications for all fire extinguishing systems, including automatirc sprinkler and standpipe systems and other s~ial fire extinguishing systems and ,elated appurtenances shall be submitted to the City of San Diego for review and approval prior to installation.
--

SYMBOLS
e
@1 -
SIM
A101
Name
Elevation
HB
T
Name
i:::E:J
xx SF
~
@------
0 i§
§== EJ==
0 4.6'

FRAMING

EXTERIOR ELEVATION

BULDING SECTION

INTERIOR ELEVATION

DETAIL MARKER

ELEVATION, HEIGHT

SPOT ELEVATION, HEIGHT

DOOR TAG

ININDOWTAG

SKYLIGHT TAG

LIGHTING FIXTURE TAG
'A· (Type), '3' (local Count)

REVISION (DEL TA)

HOSE BIB

ROOM TAG

DEMOLITION KEYNOTE
NEW \NORK KEYNOTE

SMOKE ALARM

CARBON MONOXIDE
ALARM

EXHAUST FAN / CONTINUOUS

EXHAUST FAN W/ DUCT RUN
SHEAR WALL·#, LENGTH
(sp.an drectlon)
----

VICINITY MAP PROJECTSITE
•
DEFERRED SUBMITTAL$ Truss Calculatlons. If trusses are pan of the structural design the General Contractor to provide design-build for all trusses unless otherwise noted.

Automatic Fite Sprlnkler System. If fire sprinklers are required General contractor to provide full design-build services including but not Wmited to survey of existing conditions, design, construction documents, peImit, construction and testing Sprinkler plans must be submitted fo1 review prior to any i;Jeneral buildng mspections.

Fire Sprinkler Notes;
The submittal of residential fire sprinkler plans required by California Residential Code Section R313 ha, been deferred.

To avoid delays in construction, plans for fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted not less than 30 call!!!nder days p!'io1 to lnst~abon or prior to requesting a foundation ins~tion when the submittal of fire sprinkler plan is deferred A framing,'1ough inspection shall not be 1equested poor to approval of the fi1e sprinkler plans Residenbal systems designed to the reqlilrements of NFPA 13D 01 NFPA 13R shall include the foll01N1ng a. Ga1ai;Je areas will be included in the area to be sprinklered. Protection of the heads wiM be required for all headli installed in garai;Je areas. b. All bathrooms, regardess of square footai;Je, shatl be protected. c. A backflow protection device shaR be required. d. A fire alarm signal shall be provided by a water flow switch located on the sprinlder r11;er and the alarm bell shall be of sufficient intensity to be clearly audible in all bedrooms. e. Domestic water supply shut off shall be instaHed so that the residential sprinkler system cannot be shut off, except at the meter. f. Residential dwellings constructed more than 150 feet from a roadway meeting public road standards shall be provided with a sprinkler system
CONTRACTOR FIELD VERIFICATION Before erection o1 structure and/or o rdering of any bullding components, the General Cont ractor should flold verify all horizontal, vertical dimensions and connections of existing/pro posed components Including, without being llmttod to:
building setbacks
existing/proposed grade
maximum allowable hl!ight at walls and ridQes
insulation requirements at wah, floors and roof structure window/door energ,,, performance requirements
mechanical equipment location and clea,ances
t111sses dimensions and slope
steel structure and components
intl!!!nor cabinets, appliances, furniturl!!!
plumbing fixtures and related code required clearances
any simila1 components and/ or system(s)
window/door configuration, operation, size, etc.
-- --~ ~ - -~.::....=:-
~--=-- -- - - ~
---
Johnson Residence
603 Glencrest Pl. Solana Beach, CA 92075
SDP/DRP Submittal
PROJECT SCOPE 1,074 SF habitable space addition (includes partial second story), 586 SF garage addition (400 SF exempted and 186 SF counted towards FAR), 77 SF of exterior patio space, and 506 SF garage conversion to habitable space to an (E) 1366 SF Single-family residence, and associated site improvements.

PROJECT DATA
Project Num ber
Address
APN
Base Zone
Gross Lot Area
Max Floor Area
Proposed Floor Area
Use
Occupancy
Construction Type
# of Stori es
Structure Height
Avg Lot Slope
Fire Sprinklers
Year Built (Original)
Area Name
(E) Garage Storage
(E) Playroom
(E) Residence
Subtotal
Total Existing Floor Area
603 Glencrest Pl. Solana Beach, CA 92075
263-270-22-00
LRd
SROZ
17385.3 SF
see SROZ calculation below
3532 SF
Single-Family Residential
R3
V-8
2 Existing-13'-1 11/2" : Proposed-22'-93/4"
n/a
none existing, new construction to have sprinklers
1958

GROSSFLOOR AREA-EXISTING
Area Comments
153 SF converted to living space
353SF converted to living space
1366 SF
1872 SF
1872 SF

GROSS FLOOR AREA - PROPOSED
Area Name
(E) Garage Storage
(E) Playroom
(E) Residence
(N) 2nd Floor Addition
(N) Flex Room Addition
(N) Garage Addition
(N) Laundry Addition
Exterior Patio
Subtotal
Garage parking exemption
Total Proposed Floor Area
Total Allowable SF
Area
153 SF
353 SF
1366 SF
959 SF
298SF
586SF
140SF
77 SF
3932 SF
-400 SF
3532 SF
4813.53 SF
Comments
converted to living space
converted to living space
enclosed on three sides, included in FAR

ADOITIONAL EXTERIOR AREAS
Area Name I Area I Comments
Deck/Patio 1874 SF I
Building Height Table
Max Height Allowed for the Zone
Existing Building Height
Proposed highest point of
New Construction
Proposed tallest point of
New Construction
Setback Table
Front Yard Setback
Required Setback
25feet
25 feet
13' -11 1/2"

24.23 feet (232.56 MSL)
SP#41

24.64 feet (226.65 MSL)
SP#6
Proposed Setback
25 feet @ addition

DIRECTORY
OWNER
Todd & April Johnson
603 Glencrest Pl.

Solana Beach, CA 92075
[email protected]

ARCHITECT
JLC Architecture
contact: Tom Quaas
337 S Cedros Avenue, Suite J
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 436-7777 x4#
[email protected]
ENERGY/ T-24
Gal~ant E ® Consulting
Ma \
508 i;~-~~'ste 201
Escoo,tldli)C',l, 92025
(76(!),M~-5408
[email protected]

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Lovelace Engineering
conta~t: F. I' lfaro
5930 )o~eoO/Jurt Ste 1 OD
San ~ , o .Q,>,,~i (858) Hi x306
falfa ovelaceeng.com

CIVIL ENGINEER
Sampo Engineering
contact: Alberto Oritz
171 Saxony Dr. Suite 213
Encinitas, C 92024
(760) 436-0660 ext. 13
[email protected]

SHEET INDEX

GENERAL
G001 General Project Information
SURVEY
1 sheet Survey of Existing Conditions
CIVIL
1 sheet Preliminary Grading Plan

ARCHITECTURE
A001 Axonometrics
A002 Existing Site Plan
A003 New Site Plan
A004 Area Plans
A005 Landscape Areas
A006 Story Pole Plan
A101 Demo Floor Plan
A102 1st Floor - New
A103 2nd Floor - New
A104 Roof Plan - Existing
A105 Roof Plan - New
A201 Elevations
A202 Elevations
A203 Elevations
A204 Elevations
A301 Sections
A302 Sections
A303 Sections
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. ACCESS ROAD MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructl!!!d improved width of not less than 20 feet: curb line to curb ~ne, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Exception: Smgle--Family residential driveways: serving no m ore than two single-family dwellings, shall have minimum of 16 feet, curb line to curb line, of unobstructed improved width. Accus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of not less than 75,000 pounds and shall be provided with an approved paved surface to provide all-weather drrvmg capabilities.

2. OBSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION: All roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width during construction and maintained frel!!! and clear, includng the parking of vehtcles, in accordance with the California Fire Code and the Solana Beach F1re Department 3 ADDRESS NUMBERS: STREET NUMBERS: A.pproved numbers an~or addresses shall be placl!!!d on all new and l!!!xisbng buildngs and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visibll!!! and legible from the street or roaCMlay fronting the property from l!ither direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast with th~r background, and shall meet the follO'Mng minimum standards as to sizl!!!: 4" high with a½" inch stroke v.idth for residential buildings, 8" high with a ½" stroke for commercial and multi-family residential buildings, 12· high with a 1· stroke for industrial builcings Additional numbers shall be required where deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, bu~ding corners , and entrances to comme,cial centers.
4 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM-ONE ANO TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS: StructurH; shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed and installl!!!d to the satisfaction of the Fire Department Plans fo1 the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Sprinklers will be required d ue to signtticant m odification to the interior of the d-welling and add itions being more than 50% of existing structure. 5 CLASS "A" ROOF: All stIucturl!S shall be provided 'Mth a Class •A" Roof covering to the satisfaction of the Solana Beach Fire Department.

LOT AREA CALCULATIONS
Max FAR Calculation
Lot size
6,000 X 0.5
9,000 X 0.175
2,385.3 X 0.1
Max Floor Area
Area of Work
Irrigated Area
Non-Irrigated
Water Feature
17385.3 sf
3,000 sf
1,575 sf
238.53 sf
481 3.53 sf
309.63 sf
0 sf
0 sf
Property Area Type Breakdown
Existing
Bldg Footprint 1,872 sf
Paved Area 708 sf
Total Impervious 2,508 sf
Irrigated Area 9,382 sf
Non-Irrigated/Natural 5,495 sf
Water Feature O sf
Total Pervious 14,877 sf
• See hatch notation on A005
for landscape area locations
Aggregate Landscape Area 309.63 sf
New
2,856 sf
1,400 sf
4,256 sf
9,095 sf
4,034 sf
O sf
13,1 29 sf
24' -8 1/4" @ existing nonconformity wall
Street Side Yard Setback
Int Side Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
10feet
5feet
25 feet
41 ' -4 3/4"
5' -5 3/4"
51 ' -11 3/4"
Aggregate Area <500 sf
Landscape Documentation
Package is not required ATTACHMENT 2
(1) ;;a; 1,... •
~i u
(1)
+-'
..c
u
I....
<C
u
....J
--,
These drawings and
specifications are thl!!! property
and COP'fright of the architect
and shal not be used on any
other work except b,- agreement
w,ththearchitect.
,;
z
Cl)
0 C:

Cl)
"'C
■-
"'
Cl)
0::

C:
0 "'
C:
..c:
0 -,
Project number
Drawn by
L!)
r--
0 N
0)
<(
u
- .c
(.)
co
Q)
co
co
C
co
0 (./)
-
CL
......
(/)
Q)
,._
(.)
C
Q)
(.'.)
('I)
0 (0
17022
TQ
Checked by JLC 6' Purpose SDP/DRP Submittal ~
;,;
G001
General Project
Information
I
!!
/l
l '-----------' .n
l
I'
I Af/8(J/
ca/C.
1i
~
~
ll66TKl'Jo"r 5.78'
/ifSW/II Im: 263--27(;-22
209.62 FFD711i/S
11/ASS
t
2i(J(}'
I
I
I, l \ ®lfl' 2(/9.!il}[P
OPP
,l
I +
I
~I -SC
0:: I
I fl
I
I
I
~I
i11-,.211,9!1
c:2:l
1+211,11
I
L~~ I
1+21~51
I
2/1,68 [P
L11.J2£P
I
I
I
I
I
j
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t21ais£P
2,i(//}' I
10 5 0 10
I L- I SCALE: 1" = 10'
OW,\'E/1; Ta!O Al/0 AP1111. J:J/1/S(J/

5.TTEADDIILSS.· 603 11fJ/Cf1£ST PLACE. SW/IA BfACH, CA 92075 ASSESSOR'SPAJ/ClL!/0.: 263-270-22
LEGAL DESCRin11);V: LOT 36 Cf fIDICRfST lJl/lclxiiJ/c THE arr Cf SW/IA BfACH.

CJ!lf.'Wfri fff JfWJfilJ-<filM!:lf~~ oc!iJlti 1/fd'!cCf l/0.

D.!TEO//Sll/lYEY: 6/15/17
VERTJCALBENCJJMAJ/K, f/JJN[) 25 "arr Cf EJIDIIITAS BRASS DISC /II TH[ //(J/1//'f,EST CIJl//fll Cf C!J/C/1[1[ DROP //l!£T /II TH[ 1/(J/lH'llfST Qi/ADI/NIT Cf 7HE /1/TERSECTl(J/ Cf SAi/TA 11[]£}/A )}If) SAi/TA IIOSITA S11/fFTS OAT/111:h'G',f) 29
NOTES:

El[VAII/)/: 168.062'
I, Tl/IS IS I/OT A /!(JJ//(}Ai/Y SlDllfY. Pl1(1'£//rr llllf BEAll//lGS Al/0 [IISTAIKES SHOYtll H£Rf/11 CALW!A IEO PfR 111.P 3562

2. IF PRCffllrr 11/1£ SETBACKS Ai/E CRJTIC)J. TO Tl/IS PRO.ECT llf REGalll£JIO A 8(JJ//(}Ai/Y SlDllfr BE PERf(X/j,/[[) PR/Cl/ TO C/1/ST/I/JCT/111.

J. A Pf/Elll,I///Ai/Y YllI RIPCIIT Pf/EPAi/EO BY 0/ICAG() YllI CCiJPANY 111 MAY J. 2016 AS Clll/EJI NO. 137/6/JO/j/SJ-PII WAS l1D!£llfJ) FOR DJSTI/IG 111-SJI[ EASE/,/[J/T Al/0 SAIi) fASE/,/[J/T Pt.OTIEO H£Rf/11.. @ f(l1p"''Jff/#1!'fl/l = lf l/lf,Jlf%f11lfPHu&fss#f/,lflfssAPl!RECCl/l/ED 12/Jl/1956 /II 80IJ( 6i00, PAGE 6, Cf cmaAL RECIXIOS @ DJSTI/IG fASE/,/[J/T GIIANIEO TO SAIi DIEGO lHlS Al/0 EI.ECIR/C COOPANY FCII TH[ W1l&J fM!'1£~1M,Tt€J '!ftlJJ_ ffrxlin? RECCl/l/ED 4/18/1951 TH[ F(XlOJWIG [ASE/,/[J/TS I/Alf l/0 Lcx:AY/11 SET F(JITH Al/0 TH[R[F(JI[ Ai/EI/OT PI.OTABI.E (NIJllBERJI/G PfR 111£ Pflf.JJIIJIIAIIY YllI RIPCIIT} 14 wt'rti =1 If/!& ~5fn/ffJ!llxs~rJl!fitf'i J.:'1flTl(J/ lj2g!f'1CIEO 111 10/1/1908 RECCl/l/ED 11/1/1918 /II Boa< Toi!, PAGE 41& Cf /5 EXISTI/IG fASE/,/[J/T CIIANT[JJ TO SAi/TA FE //lf//GAY/11 [IISTRICT FCII 7HE PUIIPOS[ !f:/1''/GE'/F/UfJ.f!°rftD? l/A//ITA//1 A PIPE llllf RECCl/l/ED 6/14/1924 /II Boa< /6 DJSTI/IG [ASE/,/[J/T Gf/ANIEO TO SAIi TA FE //lf//GAY/11 /J/STRICT FCII 7HE PUIIPOS[ Cf PIPE /JI/£ RfC/)//[)f/) 3/23/1925 /II Boa< 106~ PAGE 430, Cf OEEDS AB8fl[i1A Y/11S:
20 I
Off~'ER: /WO Al/0 APfilt. .KJH/C'{J//
SITEAl!DRESS: 603 Gt.£//CR£ST Pt.AC£ 5a.AIIA lif/,C/1, CA 92075 ASSf.5SOR~IARCELNO.: 253-270-22
LEG.4LDESCRJFI10N: LOT 3$ OF GW/CREST 1/lllT 2 111 Tri£ WY OF Sf1.AI/A B[AC/1, WJ/1/Y OF SAJI Oi£GO, STAIF OF CA!Jfflll//1\ ACCl1i0il/G TO /11£ M/>P lll£li[0F NO 3562 FW! UI /11£ OFF/Cf OF /11£ CWIIIY R£CX1/Dfll, l![CEl/8£/1 IJ, 1956.

DATEOFSURYEY: 6/15/17
VERllCAL BE!ICIIMAJIK: FOOND 25" GIY or £//a!IITA5 Bl/ASS DISC /II /11£ NmTHM'5T CCflN£R OF WICR£/E (i/()F U'-£T /II Tri£ //(i//HllfST OiJA(i/AflT or /11£ 11/TEJIS[COOII or SAJITA HEWIA A'I/J SAi/TA ROSITA 5TiifETS DATI/JUIGW 29 El£VAllO/I.· 168.062'
Wl1Hll'ORK QCl.4NI111ES: CVT 46 CY MAX CVT [)[PIH Io·
111: 31 er MAX FH.1. H£/GHT: 1.5' =r· 15 er
/l/P£R'10i/5 AREA CAf.C!/1.AllO/IS
DJSTIIIG TOTAL lllP[RIIOI/S AlfA DJSTIIIG TOTAL PER~OilS Al1£A 3,049 SF 14,346 SF PR(?()S[D TOTA!. ll!PERIIO/JS Al1£A 4,227 SC PR(?()S£D TOTAi. PER'10/JS Al1£A 13,168 SC PROPOS£D /I/CREASE UI IIIPER'10/JS A/i't:,C 1,178 SC
CONSTIIUC110/fliOTIS:

NOif:
/11£ PIIOPEIIIY 01111/J/ SHAfl £/IIFR UITO A H/10
HAR11/.£SS AGR£/Jl£/IT YI/Tl! /11£ arr f(i/ /11£ DJSTIIIG STOOJ DIIA1/1 SiSlfJ/ Oil /11£ APPUCAl/(S PIIOPEIIIY
I, DJSTI/IG TrPOGRAPHr SH0/111 Hilif(J// PROW!fJJ Br SAl/PO EI/Gi/lEIJijj/G, /IIC. Oil AIJGIIST 15, 2017

2. A PR£UiJ11/ARY mu: R£P{}I/T PRfPAq[Jj Br /J//CA(!(/ ll/lf miPAl/r Oil UAY J, 2016 AS Oi/D£R hV 73716006153-PII WAS 1/B![fff/l FCfl DJSTI/IG 0/I-Sllf EAS£Mf/lTS Af/D SAfl) EAS81[}1TS AR£ PL017111 HBl[0/1. @ DJSTIIIG £AS[J/EI/T GIIA~TED TO THE PACJf/C m£PHO/lf Af/0 TIIEGRAPH COWAJ/r FOIi /11£ PURPOSE OF PUBUC UTIJIIES, IIIG/i£SS A'I/J [(11[55 R£CORl![[J 12/31/1956 UI BODI( 6400, PAGE 6, OF OfFIC/A!. R£C[i/OS ® [XISTIIIG [AS[J/EI/T (i/AI/T£D TO SAIi OifGO GAS Al/0 MCTRIC COJJ!WIY FOIi /11£ PURPOSE (1' PUB!JC UTIJTiS, UIGll[SS AJ.V [Gll[55 R[CORl![[J 4/18/195 !¥ BODI( 6543, PAGE 255, (1' OfFIC/AI. fl[C[i/05 /11£ FO/.LOWJIG [ASDl[JITS I/Alf ND lOCAll0/1 S[7 FORTH Al/0 TH£REFOII[ AR£ NOT PLOTA/!1.£ (NIJMii£1/!/1G PER /11£ PR£UiJ11/ARY H/lf R£P{}I/Q
/4 DJSTI/IG [AS[/1[//T GI/AflTED TO SAIi O/£GIJITO MUTUAi. WAIFR CO A C[i/POI/All0/1 Fm /11£ PURPOSE (1' WAIFR PIP£ U/lf AJ.V /JiSTR/BIJTIIIG BASIi/ AS lAJ{) Al/0 CO/IS7liJJCTED Oil 10/1/1908 R[CORl![[J 11/1/1918 UI BODI( 760. PAGE 418, Of llfIIJS /5 [XISTIIIG [ASDl[J/T GI/Al/1[/) TO SAi/TA FE i!IRIGAll0/1 /JiSllllCT FCYI /11£ PURPOSE OF CO/ISTlll/CT AND FDliflf/1 MAU/TAUi A PIP£ U/lf R[CORl![[J 6/14/1924 /II BOO< 751, PAGE 404,0f /lfI/JS
ff,fff ':.6 J"fiwtf' GR Al/TED TO SANTA FE II/Ii/GA ll0/1 DISlll/CT f(i/ /11£ PURPOSE (1' PIP£ UII[ R£C(i//)[/) J/23/1925 U1 81)1)1( IIJ65 J. AIL Oil-9/f STl)(IM DI/AUi, DI/AU/AG£ SWAl.[S, AJ.V BUP AREAS AR£ PR/VAT[ ARD SHAl.l BE UAUITAJ//£0 BY /11£ PIIOPEIIIY 0'1>1/ER

4. WAIL El£VAOOIIS S//0'1>1/ H/Jif/J/1 MAY VARY 0/J/il//G WISTlll/Cll0/1 OIi£ TO EXISTI/IG GRAl![S ARD SIJi. El/GI}/[[// R[Cl!IJ!JIJIDAll0/15 SOil EIIG/11£IJ/ SHALL /JfJERl/;'11£ FU/Al. WALL FOOTIIIG [)[PT/IS

5. ROOf 00'1>1/SPOI/TS TO BE DISCHARGE!) /I/TO lAJ/1)5CAP[ Afl[AS PflKJII TO 0/SCHARGI.' TO /11£ SAHSFACll0/1 OF Hlf C//Y £J/Gl/lf£R. WAIFR SHALL I/OT BE A!LOfff/1 TO POilO Oil Sllf Al/0 SHALL I/OT DI/AUi TOWARD BW!illG FOONDAllO/IS

6. All [XISII,\~ A/ID Pf/OPOS£0 UTIJIY U/1£5 clJIWIG /11£ SIJI/.ECT Pf/OP£RTY SHAil BE UISTAllIO 1/1/[J[///J//OI///[ l CO/ITRACT0/1 SHALL REIJS[ Hlf DJST/1/G WATER Al/0 S£llfJI clJ/~CES CUIIR[ll[Y 111-115£ B CO/ITRACT0/1 TO lOCAIF /11£ [XISTI/IG 5£llfll lAIFRA1 C1JIIREl/llY clJ/WIG /11£ DJSTI/IG R£!JWIC£ Al/0 /1[1/S[ IF FEAS/lilE. A H/10 HA'ill/.£55 AGll[[)JEIIT IS R[OU!RE/} Al/0 BACKFWW PR£lf/lTER SHAU BE IIISTA/1£D

GW/CRESTPL
I
I
R/W
I/OTES
I. Pt.ACE J AIICHOIIS PER SOilAR£ YARD Of MAIFRIAI

2. F[i/ GI/ASS OIi TOIIF Oi'll/!11, /IISTAIL l)Jl[Jl(X( T/11,1 45/1 TYPICAL ORA/NAG[ SWALE TOIIF l/[///F/J/CFJl£JIT MAT GD NDSCN.E A Rf)¥
55' 2£5'
PR(?()S[D
CO/IC/1fT[
.JP!_ 0/i/ITTl'AY
EXJSTIIIG GRAI![ -.,;,-··
CROSS SECTION @ DRIVEWAY

GLENCREST PLACE
DJST/1/C TRAffl. l#IE
'f INOICA TES El£VA BOIi PER PLAN
SCIJE:1"=5'®
DJSTIIIGEOG£~
Of PA>fl/£1/T I
I
I
TURF
9"X9''XJ2"CONCRUE CURB DETAIL © =======:::::::::::::::~::':::::::::'::=============1NTS C PL
t/2'UAX
2 1/4" Oll/fll![ORl/1EO TIIIIOiJGH PLAT[
3/8' DIA //0/£ /liP}
FLOW CONTROL ORIFICE PLATE DETAIL ®
HTS
6" DIA PVC P£Rf0/IA1[{) PJPf 1£H 19{72

DETENTION AND BIO FILTRATION BASIN
WITH PARTIAL RETENTION scALE: t"=S' ([) VICINITY MAP! HOT JO SCI!£ CB
[P,:

FF:

FG.·
fl;
FS,:

HP,
If
ft"
TS:
1W
ll!il RIG/IT-OF-WAY
TOP Of GRAIF TO/'Of SWAu: TOi'lf WAfl
PLACE
10 I
Rf)¥
Rf)¥
5 0
~7
K[Y I/OTES:

LEGE/ID
Pf/OPERIY B!JIAVARY
EAS£Mf/lT U/lf
[XISTIIIGCOIITWJI
[XISTIIIG El£VAHl!II
El£VAllO/I ABO>f GRAI![
PROPOSE/J CO/ITOiJR
PR(?()S[D El£VAHOII
OMLJCHT Ul,"ijSA'IIIJJT U/1£
[Xfi[C00/1 lf Fl.OW
Cl!IICilfTE PA>fl/£1/T
0£mil'OS£D GI/Al/IT[ PATH
P!llVAIF GRA~IY STOOJ Dl/)J/1 PIP£
P!llVA If SIJ8-0/IA1/I PIP£
P!llVAIF AREA Of/AUi CATCH BASi/1

OO'IIIISPOIJT
OfIPEll[O FOOT/1/G
llOOO [)[CK ABO,£ GI/Al![
OETEllll0/1 Al/0 B!O flW/All0/1 BASIi/
DfMOUSII/PROTECT Ill-PLACE 0 I. ODIOIJSH [XISTI/IG C/JI/CRfT[ SJJflFAI![ 2 ODIOIJSH DJSTIIIG llOOO RM.

J ODIOIJSH DJSTIIIG STEPS

4. ODIOIJSH DJSTIIIG AC PA ffJ/f//T 0/i/ITTl'A Y
S OD/{)/fi/1 DJSlll/0 PLAIIIFR
ODIOIJSH [XIST/1/G SH£IJ
ODIOIJSH [XISTI/IG TREE
ODIOUS// f(i/ll0/1 lf DJSTIIIG llOOO [)[CK

9. NOT 115£

10. PROTFCT BUSH Ill-PLACE
SY!IBOL
• 146.0 (/46.00)
/146.00/
--[@--
146.00
-1-1-11-
-SD-- -SD-
-SUBS CB
c:>os
II PROIFCT SEfffR Wf//AL SEE CO/ISTlll/Cll0/1 110/f ND 8 12 PROTFCT R£!JWIC£ Cl-PLACE
13 PROTFCT WICR£/E SJJRFAI![ Cl-PLACE

14. PROIFCT m£PHOllf/COIMJll!CAllO/I P[D[STA!. HI-PLAC£ 15 PROTFCT POHf/1 P!U/GUY Ill,£ /11-PLAI![

16. PRO IF CT WATER ll£TEJ/ Cl-Pt.ACE
17 PROIFCT TREE UI PLACE
18 PROIFCT WAfl UI Pt.ACE

19. PROIFCT AfiB(i/ ffl-P!.ACE

20. PROTFCT llOOO [)[CK AEO>f GI/Al![ /II-PLACE
21 PROIFCT llOOO STAYIS AEOff GRAI![ Cl-Pt.ACE
22 PROTFCT GAS IJ£lfR UI PLACE
23 PROTFCT HfAOWAfl /II-Pt.ACE

24. Pf/OTFCT EARTH£// DITCH Cl-PLACE

25. PRO IF CT CUliB 1111£1 YI/TH GI/A If Cl-Pt.ACE

26. PROTFCT CUliB /II-PLACE
2Z PROIFCT CROSS GUTTER Cl-PLACE
28 PROTFCT AC BERM /II-PLACE

29. PROTFCT AC PAlfJl£JIT #I-PLACE
30 PROIFCT S£1!£R MAI/HCJ.£ Cl-Pt.ACE
JI. PROIFCT S£llfJI UAW lV-P!.ACE
32 PROTFCT WA IFR UII[ Ill-Pt.ACE
33 PROIFCT E!.EClll/CAf. U£TER UI-P!.AI![

34. PROIFCT FIRE HilJRANT Cl-PLACE
1/[W IMPRO',fMEI/TS □
I PR(?()S£D GARAGE PER ARCHIIFCTS Ml
2 PROPOS£0 C!i/C/1fT[ ll'i/ITTl'A r
3 PR(?()S£D Cl!IICilfTE STEPS/SlfRFAI![

4. I/OT US£D
S PR(?()SED 9" 11!1![ BY 12' D£fP CO/IC/1fT[ CUliB PER /)[TAJ/. "C" PR(?()S[D to' 11!1![ 0G PATH 0~ 90% CO/JPACTED NAll>f S(il PROPOSED STOIIAGI.' PER ARCHIIFCTS PLAN
PIIOi'OSED OfIPEll[O FOOTI/IG

9. PROPOSED ffOO) R£TA/ll!IIG WAfl

10. PR(?()S£D ff001 OECK ABO,£ GRAI![
II PR(?()SED COi.i/JiN PER ARCHIIFCTS PLAN
12 PR(?()SED AC PAlfJIFJIT STREET WJ![MNG
IJ PR(?()SED CII/J RilAll&VG WAfl ARO/J/10 PERIIIEIFR OF OETE!lll0/1 AND B!O FllTRAH0/1 BASIi/
STORM DRAIII/WA TER 0/JAUTY Q I PROPOS£D TTl[IICH DI/AUi 2 PROPOS£D P!llVAIF STOIIU DIIAUI Pit' PIPE O IX MIii SI.OPE 3 PR(?(JS£D Pfi/VATF CATCH BASIi/ BY I/OS [i/ APPROlf/J EDI/Al.

PROPOS£0 RIP-RAP Ellf//GY DIS5JPA TOI/
PR(?()S[D 6' 11!1![ BY 15' LO/IG BY 35' D££P /)[T[/m!il Al/0 BIO FllTRAHl!II BAS/II /154 FT' CAPAalY) PER [)[TM. t 6. PROPOS£D 24.•w· O\f//t10W CATCH BASi/l lllTI/ srm GRAIF PER BIIOO<S (i/ APPRO>fO EOiJAI.
10 I
PROPOS£D P!llVAIF PEJ/FO/IATED PVC SIJII-DIIAUI P.PE PER (Sl!I/-JS} PI/Oi'OSED DI/AU/AG£ SWAU: PER OETAfL 'A'
PROPOSED HfAOWAfl
20 I SCALE: 1" = 10'

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR:

CASE NO: PA20-002

JOHNSON RESIDENCE
603 GL[NCR[ST PL
SHEET 1 OF 1
[i] Axonometric
- from NE [27 Axonometric
- from NW
Garage & 2nd Floor Addition
[3]Axonometric -from SE [47 Axonometric
- from SW
OJ ii !.... •
.3 1 u
OJ
+-'
.c
u
!....
<C
u
_J
--,
These drawings and
sp!!Cificationsarethe property
and COp')'right of the architect
and shall not be used on any
other work except by agreement
with the architect.
0 z
(1)
0 C:
(1)
-c
■-
u,
(1)
0:::

C:
0 u,
C:
.c:
0 -,
Project number
Drawn by
Checked by
LO
r--
0 N
0)
<(
0 ..c
u
ro
Q)
co
ro
C
ro
0 Cl) -
a..
+-'
If)
Q)
L..
u
C
Q)
(.'.)
(")
0 CD
17022
TQ JLC
Purpose SDP/DRP Submittal
A001
Axonometrics
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
IT] Site Plan 1" = 10'-0"
I
I
I
I
I
Existing
[27 Existing site section 1" = 10'-0"
I
I Glencrest Pl.
;--- --~- -- --------------------------- -------- -
I
I
i
I
I
(E) concrete patio
Ed e of pavement
(E) single-family residence
1st - To of FF 09'-7 112"
'
......_ ....._ (E)Deck
to remain
'
S 89" 48' 45" W
114.56'
,i' ..
(E) Patio
to remain
J
Edge of pavement
(E) landscape area in ROW
I
I S'--0" I
~ I I I I
I r t
I
··1
I ____ I I r·------1
I I .... -l I
I
l
NOTES:

NOTE: All dimensions shown on this
plan are measured to the exterior wall
surface.

STREET NUMBERS: ApprOYed numbers and/or addfesses shaU be placed on all new and existing buildngs and at appropriate addtional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roact.vay fronting the pcoperty from either direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast 'With thl!ir background, and shall meet the following minimum standards as to size: 4' high with a½" inch stroke width for residential buildngs, s· high with a½" stroke for comml!rcial and multi.family 1esidential bui1cings, 12· high wtth a 1· stroke for industrial buildngs. Additional numbers shall be requir@d where deemed necl!Ssary by the Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, buildng corners , and entrances to commerciat centers O' 5' 10'
~
QJ ;a;;
::s -.
t i
QJ
+-'
..c
u
~
<(
u
__J
---,
These drawings and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the architect
and shall not be used on any
otherworkexceptbyagreement
with the architect
Q) l{)
t--
0 0
N
C: 0)
<(
Q) 0
-c - ..c:
u ■- CIJ
u, Q)
Q) co
CIJ
ct:: C
CIJ
0 C: Cf)
- 0 0..
_.
u, (/)
Q)
C: L..
u
C
.c Q)
0 (9 ("")
-, 0
CD
..
,'l
C
I
,3
0 z
Project number 17022
Drawn by TO
Checked by JLG
Purpose SOP/DRP Submittal
A002
Existing Site Plan

8. ,jj
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
IT] Site Plan - New 1" = 10'-0"
I
I
____ .., __________ _ Glencrest PL
I
I
I
I landscape ar~a, to remain
I/
I
/...
/ /
II
/I
/1 ___ // '
(E) landscape area
to,emain.----
·-..... -,.-£,.---
·----.... __ :_=::- -
Ed e of pavement
(E) landscape area in ROW,
work done per civil sheets
landscape area, to remain
__________ ..,,_ ________ ___ _ - .., _
proposed driveway
threshold
' ':::: 195'-21/2'' ~ ,..._
S 89" 48' 45" W
114.56'
Edge of pavement
(E) landscape area in ROW,
work done per civil sheets
(E) Residence
(El landscape area
to ,emain
I
- 1
,,.,-··/·---------~-------
,/ - - --, ;,<.
/ ·•<:i,~,.,.,-/·~----~~~~-
----------- ---------------
N 85' 54' 25" E

5.78'
NOTE: OUTDOOR LIGHTING

1. Existing residence footprint not changed at FYSB line, existing 1esidence not built square to p,operty line, distance shown to outside face of existing wall. See A:l!J2 for
encroachment of at FYSB ~ne

1. All new light fixtures shall be in conformance 'Mth the CitylMde li!;lhting regulations of the lolling Ordinance.

2. All light fixtures shall be appropriately shieMed so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quanbties or intensities as to be detrimental to the
surrouncingarea.

FENCES AND WALLS Any proposed onsite fencing, walls and retaining walls Of any combination thereof shall comply with applicable regulations of SBMC Section 17.20.040 and 17.60.070 (Fences and Walls).

LANDSCAPE

1. No invasive species will be allOW'l!d to remain or be planted on site.
2 ,AJI landscaping will be dough! to/er:mt natives/adapted species
3 Drip irrigation, soaker hoses, Of micro-spray systems are to be utlized and run in a way to avOld surface runoff to
stormwaterdrains

4. Watering schedule to respond to seasonal conditions and !oca\ rainfall to minim12e water use.

GROSS A.OOR AREA - PROPOSED
Area Name Area Comments
(E) Garage Storage 153 SF converted to living space
(E) Playroom 353SF converted to living space
(E) Residence 1366 SF
(N) 2nd Floor Addition 959 SF
(N) Flex Room Addition 298 SF
(N) Garage Addition 586 SF
(N) Laundry Addition 140 SF
Exterior Patio 77 SF endosed on three sides, included in FAR Subtotal
Garage parking exemption
Grand Total
3932 SF
-400 SF
3532 SF
Total Allowable SF 4813.53 SF

ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR AREAS
Area Name I Area I Comments
Deck/Patio J874 SF I
Max FAR Calculation
Lot size
6,000 X 0.5
9,000 X 0.175
2,385.3 X 0. 1
Max Floor Area
Area of Work
I nigated Area
Non-Irrigated
Water Feature
17385.3 sf
3,000 sf
1,575 sf
238.53 sf
4813.53 sf
309.63 sf
O sf
O sf
Property Area Type Breakdown
Existing
Bldg Footprint 1,872 sf
Paved Area 708 sf
Total Impervious 2,508 sf
Irrigated Area 9,382 sf
Non-Irrigated/Natural 5,495 sf
Water Feature O sf
Total Pervious 14,877 sf
• See hatch notation on AOOS
for landscape area locations
Aggregate Landscape Area 309.63 sf
r
Aggregate Area <500 sf
Landscape Documentation
Package is not required
Setback Table
Front Yard Setback
Required Setback
25 feet
Proposed Setback
25 feet @ addition
New
2,856 sf
1,400 sf
4,256 sf
9,095 sf
4,034 sf
O sf
13,129 sf
24' -8 1/4"@ existing nonconformity wall
Street Side Yard Setback
Int Side Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
10 feet
5 feet
25 feet
41 ' -4 3/4"
5' -5 3/4"
51 ' -11 3/4"
O' 5' 10'
~
QJ a;
-
zi u
QJ
+-J
..c
u
~
<C
u
.....J
~
These dfav,,jngs and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the architect
and 5haM not be used on any
other work except by agreement
with the architect
ci
z
a,
(.)
C:
a,
-c
■-
u,
a,
ct:

C:
0 u,
C:
.c
0 -,
Project number
Drawn by
LO
I'-
0 N
0)
<(
0 ..c
(.)
ro
Q)
ca
ro
C
ro
0 Cf)
-
CL
......
en
Q)
,._
(.)
C
Q)
(9
C'0
0 co
17022
TQ
Checked by JLC i'. Purpose SDP/DRP Submittal ~
>---------in
I A003 ~
New Site Plan 8
'--------~!
(N) 2nd Floor Addition
959 SF
□
D
~1------l----l-----!=!l=--===!!-+----~========i
3'-0" 14'-4 3/4" 17'-11114"
[272nd Floor 1/8"= 1'-0"

1. All dimenisons are shown to exterior face of wall
31' O" 65' 61/4"
E\ Garane Storane
'\ <El Residence (N) Garage Addition
I
1366 SF 586 SF I
~q \ I
~ 1;
I
---
---
---
--- ---
---
--- --- OiPla•=m 9 ---
--- 353SF g r---
11 I "-- i!i
- - Qi-t1, \Jl; nA r "=- t..J ~ ~1 - 0 ·111ciJI I L _J 1g )IJ JI /Nl L undrv Additic n
140 SF
7'-2 1/2'' 10'-2114" 17'-111/'1"
IT] 1st Floor 1/8" = 1'-0"
I - Extenor Patio
77 SF
15'-81/2"
Area Name
(E) Garage Storage
(E) Playroom
(E) Residence
Subtotal
Garage parking exemption
Total Existing Floor Area
I
-
---- r
!Iii fllllRaam _,
298SF
-
I 25'-7 112" o.::, 20"-01/4"
,,

GROSSFLOORAREA-EXISTING
Area
153SF
353 SF
1366 SF
1872 SF
-400 SF
1472 SF
Comments
converted to living space
converted to living space

GROSS FLOOR AREA - PROPOSED
Area Name
(E) Garage Storage
(E) Playroom
(E) Residence
(N) 2nd Floor Addition
(N) Flex Room Addition
(N) Garage Addition
(N) Laundry Addition
Exterior Patio
Subtotal
Garage parking exemption
Total Proposed Floor Area
Total Allowable SF
Area
153SF
353 SF
1366 SF
959 SF
298SF
586 SF
140 SF
77 SF
3932 SF
-400 SF
3532 SF
4813.53 SF
Comments
converted to living space
converted to living space
enclosed on three sides, included in FAR

ADDITIONAL EXTIERIOR AREAS
Area Name I Area I Comments
Deck/Patio 1874 SF I
~
QJ aaa
-
zi u
Q)
+-'
..c
u
~
<(
u
.....J
---,
These drawings and
specifications are the property
and copyri9ht of the architect
and shall not be used on any
other work except t,,,, agreement
with the architect.
0 z
a,
0 C:
a,
-0
■-
u,
a,
~
C:
0 u,
C:
.c:
0 -,
Project number
Drawnt,,,,
Checkedt,,,,
ID
I'-
0 N
(J)
<(
u
.c
(.)
ro
(l)
co
ro
C
ro
0 (/)
-
D..
+-'
en
(l)
.....
(.)
C
(l)
(.'.)
(")
0 (0
17022
TQ
JLC
Purpose SOP/DRP Submittal
A004 Area Plans
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
[I] Site Plan - Landscape 1" ; 10'-0"
I
I Glencrest Pl. j-·---~-----------
I
I
I
I
~ Hatch show.s areas of new irrigated landscape area
I
I
I
Ed e of pavement
(E) landscape area in ROW,
work done per civil sheets
{E) landscape area, to remain f -- -- --,.,,_~
. - . - . - . - . - -. - . - . - . - . - . -
proposed driveway
threshold
(N) Driveway
s 89" 48' 45- w
114.56'
Edge of pavement
(E) landscape area in ROW ,
work done per civil sheets
(E) Residence
-
(El Deck, to
remain
--- -------------. (N) -deck above - grade _ - -- -- -- (El Patio, to
remain
t!i
I
I
I
....,...., __ ...,...,_,.I; - (El landscape area I -_ around adcition to -1 N 85' 54' 25" E

5.78'
"'
NOTE:

Slope callouts per Civil drawings shown for clarity, slope calculations and BMP locations shown on Civil sheets
Max FAR Calculation
Lot size
6,000 x0.5
9,000 X 0.175
2,385.3 X 0.1
Max Floor Area
Area of Work
Irrigated Area
Non-lnrigaled
W ater Feature
17385.3 sf
3,000 sf
1,575 sf
238.53 sf
4813.53 sf
309.63 sf
O sf
O sf
Property Area Type Breakdown
Exi sting
Bldg Footprint 1,872 sf
Paved Area 708 sf
Total Impervious 2,508 sf
lnrigated Area 9,382 sf
Non-lnigated/Nalural 5,495 sf
Water Feature O sf
Total Pervious 14,877 sf
• See hatch notation on AOOS
for landscape area locations
Aggregate Landscape Area _309.63 sf
(
Aggregate Area <500 sf
Landscape Documentation
Package is not required
New
2,856 sf
1,400 sf
4,256 sf
9,095 sf
4,034 sf
O sf
13,1 29sf
OJ ;aa;
I... -
zi u
OJ
......
..c.
u
I...
<(
u
_J
--,
These dra'Mng5 and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the architect
and shaM not be used on any
other work except by agreement
with the architect.

Cl) LO
r--
(.) 0
N
C: 0)
<(
Cl) u
-0 ..c
(.)
■- ro
u, Q)
co Cl) ro
~ C:
ro
0 C: (f)
- 0 CL
...... u, en
Q)
C: L..
(.)
C:
.c: Q)
0 <.9
('I')
-, 0
C.D
~ C
C
0 1
~
ci
z
Project number 17022
Drawn by TQ
Checked by JLC
Purpose SOP/ORP Submittal
A005
Landscape Areas
222
.84'
218.71'
~
30 28
6"112" 6"112"
:j □ ij 23'x2
.3'
~

3.3'outriix;,er
ij
232.09' 39
□
222.84'
223.76'
ij □ 6"112''
226.65' extent of buil
ding below 219
.00"
lwr=bttm 10 lwr 19
2nd floor 217.B8' 232.09' 227
.61'
ED>
219.00'
GJ
1 ~~ory Pole Plan
222 94'
224.02'
l••rido<I 224.02'
6"112''
218.71'
223.76' lat ridge I
24 E]
218.97'
219.00'
NOTE:
2 1. See
all ea
attached
ves are <24"
certificatio from ext erior face of wall l MSL heights for all pro~f: ~~torypole for Q) = 1.... •
::J .
t;I
Q)
.-t:
..c
u
I...
<C
u
..J
--"\
0 z
a,
(.)
C:
a,
-c
■-
C:
0 u,
C:
.c:
0 ...,
I
Project number
Drawn by
I.[)
r----
0 N
0)
<(
u
.c
(.)
C'O
Q)
OJ
C'O
C
C'O
0 Cl)

0..
1 7
17022 TQ
Checked by
C-Story il' Purpose SDPIDRP Submittal ~
A006 I Story Pole Plan !
a
,n
~ encroachment for encroachment for
portion of (El residence IX)rtion of (E) residence w \ '\ I J • existing nonconforming existing nonconformmg
Existing nonconforming portion of extsbng residence j 25'_!,ro~t ~ r~se~ac 1.r-:i:;l;;;;;;;;;;;;;~·,,~ll~(E;!);:w~•ll~wh:•:::«::;o~•::"'.:"";.!doo~,.::·•:m::ov:::•!d ;;;;;;;;±::=:;,;:=~,_==::::i;;;_;;;;;;;.;:.;;;.~-.. -;;;.;;J-.e.ii•!!•;j;m,~iziiieiC=+- :::-=1,-;=::::;F====;::;~~~~~:;;:;;::~:;:;;':;;;~~~ .... G;;:;;~~~;;;:;;;;:~¥ - - - i 11 // \, r-J I I 12"·1" I (E) Ga rag@ Stora!je converted to living space I [ fl l l / ',, ...... __ ] H : : i1 1,~,,' I
i
ii
I
I
1: JI // r::======:::::'.' I I 11
~ II ! :------- 1: I I /l ":I 12'-2 3/4" JJ,
I: !! ! !// ~ l ! f:~....... "• .;:::::::::::_:_~ ~ I ,., ...... -c . ~ L .... / ..,, I / = !!
l r;J t ll
l ~: - 1
j(EJ Playroom converted to hv1ng spa~I
:

L..---------, '
r--------7 I L. L ________ J )
I
(E) deck and patio to remain
' ' i r-----.---------------------""T _____ J '
! L _________________________ l ___ _
------
ii --~~:~ !! ~ =~-:=.--:::r-:=:..\ =! ====• :::::::::~~c::--=r::::::::~ ~ 11 / " , 11 _.,,,.,/ ::l======-s,;::=;::===c:3======-s,:::::;::
[iJ Demolition - 1st Floor Plan 1/4" = 1'-0"
5•-0·
SYSB

WALL TYPE LEGEND
NOTE:

EXISTING WALLS TO REMAJN

EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED

NEW WALLS
NOTE: HATCH PATTERN AND \MOTH VVILL

VAAY BASED ON SPECIFIC WAU TYPE

1. Front of existing residence is existing nonconforming, see A102 for all work proposed along front (north) elevation 2 lnfil all areas where e:dsting doors & wmdow5 shown as demolishl!d. 'M'\ere wall is removed, see A 102 for extent of nt!H construction behind FYSB line
't
,~ .. ~
O' 2' 4' 8'
QJ aaa; 1... •
:::J ■
t i
Q.)
+,J
..c
u
I...
<(
u
___J
....,
Thne drirMngs and
specifications are the p,of>@rty
and COl')'nght of the archit~
and sha• nol be used on any
other work except by agreement
with the architect.
a, I.{)
r--
(.) 0
N
C: (J')
<t: a, 0
-c - ..c
(.)
■- C'Cl
u, Q)
c:o a, C'Cl
~ C
C'Cl
0 C: Cf)
- 0 a..
..... u, en
Q)
C: ....
(.)
C
.c Q)
0 (.'.)
(")
-, 0
(!)
z •
Project number 17022
o,awn by TQ
Checked by JLG
Purpose SDP/DRP Submittal
A101
Demo Floor Plan
5'
N
~
g
~
~

8. ,lj
sr3:£:t
85 SF (net)
.Af- 1----~ \§1
-
7'-21'2" 10'-21/4"
IT] 1st-Top of FF New 1/4" = 1'-0"
34'-10"
- - 96'-r - 61 '-9"
I ~ 209'-1114"
$
__ ma, l e,teat of a"hnectu,al prnjectioo _____________________________ _ 209'-51/2"
$
l
"1
209'-71/2"
$
~.EJ
"-------l u proposed gas 1 --------~ fireplace, see roof ~-------i plan ~or chimney !,} ........... ~ location 1-------J
~
II I
~~1n·
DliJ
32 SF (net)
217 ~ SF (net)
- -
I
I
I

WALL TYPE LEGEND

EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN

EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED

NEW WALLS
NOTE: HATCH PATTERN AND \/I/IDTH \/I/ILL

VARY BASED ON SPECIFIC WALL TYPE
00,AJI work shown at existing front elevation to not exceed existing envelope, see sections for architectural projection dimensions per 17.20.030 (0 )(4) J
-
Bedroom
O[:J
162 SF (net)
Bedroom
DL]
161 SF (net)
l
1·
_J
4------- li-------
~-------
~------- 494 SF (nl!t)
...1-'l.--~(====!:h' ~ /1 ""
proposed gas J ,. .__ / ' J 1
2·-111n" II
~~ ___ S'(oet) 'I
_J
:-.:-_-:] laundry chute ~
-- _L~ry~--
se SF (net)-"'-.
=="-- --1 =>
Lil ' ' ' 5'-4' " 2'-31/4"
r Pdrm
DD -- 28 SF (ne.t)
10'-13/4"
17'-8 3/4"
!I
t:,-k~-:;d I bench
T
Hall
DLJ -- 49 SF (net)
O(]
2 A301
~
5 A301
- 208'-91/2"
$
' ' ' 209'-6 1/2~ ' $
Deck/Patio [:iQLI
874 SF(net)
"---(E) Deck&Patio - ,i
15'-9 3/4"
.. ---.. I I
I I
I I
209'-61/2"
$
fireplace, see roof
plan for chimney
location
Kitchen
DD
268 SF{net)
1g
I I
~ I
.,
0 0
~ 25'-8 3/4"
I
I
Hall
o::J
41 SF (net)
r
I
I
: 11'--__;;; --+-+,~h
--,ICf--~
-,
Bathroom
\J u 3 ·? -=7 l!•~tn ) [ I~
I ~
~ ~ ~~ ~~,, --- I D · 50 SF (net} ~ l_Y-J
LOVEN counter
I
I " 4"-0"
~
-
'
ED> 1 1 208'-10 3/4"
$ A
~1
I
4 I _,,_ ____ ,· .. _11_, .. ___ ......, ,
12'-1 "
" ~-'I<
~
Fle~ce
358SF {net)
j--'ls19'-9 314" I
4 I
I
I (E) residence
I (N) Addition
I
I
I
I
I
I
O' 2'
·i
... ~
~,i
~
4' 8'
QJ ;;a
I- - ::J ■
t i
QJ
+-'
..c
u
I-
<(
u
_J
---,
These drawings and
spKifications are the property
and CO,P'tright of the a,chitect
and shaN nol be used on any
other work except b'f agreement
with the architect.

C1) I[)
I'-
0 0
N
C: 0)
<(
C1) 0
-c ..c
(.)
■- co
u, (l)
co C1) co
Cr! C
co
0 C: (f)
- 0 CL
_.
u, (/)
(l)
C: L..
(.)
C
.c: (l)
0 (.'.) ("')
-, 0
CD
0 z
Project number 17022
Drawn by TQ
Checked by JLC
Purpose SOP/DRP Submittal
A102
1st Floor - New
~
..
~
~
~
{
□

8. ill
16'-1112" 6'-0"
~ ., - - - -
C) 8 ,,~ UP
'-"
~ /,'\.
~ ~ Primary Bath
Closet
~ ,- 227 SF (net)
[Jjj[] - 141 SF (net)
- C_ I\/
-5
C: 7 C Q)
.0
~ = - /
Primary Bedroom c- 24~ SFJ ne2__ Landing
- - - - ~ - - -
I\ 85SF (net)
.. 2 14'-0"
□ I--- laundry chute
~ r direct vent gas
appliance Office
OK] ~
ILJI 132 SF (net)
14'-73/4"
14'-4314" 17'-6 3/4"
- 4
IT] Proposed 2nd Floor Plan 1/4" = 1'-0"
E] L (N) cal-fill gable roof
-, m;ax. extent of roof encroachment I ------------------------------------------ ------- /
_I_ 1 ---TC.- - - - ... -
I
\ "'-"' """ "'"'" _ J 1/Roofiog - Mota! Staoaog Soam
/ I
~ ,>moey
l l
I
~ ■ V ,';
~ (E) roof structure (N) cal-fill gable roof
I I i\
,';
'I
a,
4 4 B 4 ~

WALL TYPE LEGEND
l
-.-___________
4 O'

EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN

EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED

NEW WALLS
NOTE: HATCH PATTERN AND WIDTH IMLL

VARY BASED ON SPECIFIC WAU TYPE
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Roofing• Asphalt Shingle
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6" / 12 ..
2' 4'
QJ a;;; 1,,.. •
zi u
QJ
-+-J
..c:
u
I,,..
<C
u
....J
--.

These dfawings and
specificabons are the PfOperty
and COP'lrifilht of the architect
and shall not be used on any
other work except b',' agreement
with the architect.
0 z
Cl)
(.)
C:

Cl)
"'C
■-,,,,
Cl)
£t:

C:
0 ,,,,
C:
.c
0 -,
Project number
Dra'M1 by
Checked by
L!)
r--
0 N
0)
<(
0 ..c
(.)
ro
Q)
(lJ
ro
C
ro
0 U)
-

0...
......

Cl)
Q)
,_
(.)
C
Q)
(9
('I')
0 co
17022
TQ
JLC
Purpose SDPIDRP Submittal
A103
2nd Floor - New
s
b E ~
:: ~ ~. ~
t
' e r--------------'.""'~"'""'..,""""-'"°""'-''"""'_".'{-"-""'-'"''°'_"."',..,,.~,_•""''"'""'~'.<o~'."":~_;(-~)----:--_r:---1--_-__ -_-_\-,-, --------------r---------------;~-~~~:~:~]--------~, l ::::r" L . 1 ___________ :xte~t~-~e_s1 ence e ~w \ 1 1 {El FYSB (E)FYSB r:::, 1:-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------~--------- - - - - - - - ~ i::,
I:, : ~ 1T
/1 I ! / ! I :
/ l l I \ \--t 1---------------------------- J I \
\\ i I \ \ I , ----,➔
,~ : ,,l
(
,:
i11~r - l l :
[iJ Existing Roof Plan 1/4" ; 1'-0"
'i
~~i
~
O' 2' 4' 8'
QJ aaa 1... •
zi u
Q)
+-'
..c
u
I...
<C
u
_J
~
These dra....;ngs and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the architect
and shall not be used on any
other work ex~pt by agreement
with the architect.

C
0 l
,3
0 z
Cl)
0 C:

Cl)
"'C
■-
u,
Cl)
~
C:
0 u,
C:
.c:
0 -,
Project number
Drawn by
Checked by
LO
I'-
0 N
0)
<t:
0 ..c
(,)
ro
Q)
co
ro
C
ro
0 (/)
-

0...
.....
en
Q)
,._
(,)
C
Q)
(9
("I')
0 co
17022
TQ
JLC
Purpose SDP/DRP Submittal
A104
Roof Plan - Existing
5'
g
~ ;;
i'l
1l
"'
~ D
8-
,lj
ROOF NOTES 1 Insulation at all roof locations to be minimum R-value p!'I EN-101

2. Insulation to be 1" air impermeable spray foam applied in cirect contact to roof sheathing above. Remaining depth to be filled with standard insulation (air permeable). No ventilation required per R606.4 (5) (5.1)

3. Roof covering must be Class A minimum. No wood shakes or shingles allowed.

4. Attic ventilation openings shall be covered 'Mth corrosion r~stant metal mesh with 118" min to 1/4" max openings.

5. Metal Roof· Mnf: ATAS, Product Z' Fi@kj-Lok Panel FLR195, .032.Alurninum, Under1ayment 2 layers of Ve<saSheild Underlayment (for Class A Rating) 6 Flat/Curved Roof. Mnf: Johns ManviMe, Product APP Modified Bitumen Heat Fused Systems, Declc C-15132, Base Sheet Two Plies Type G2, "Permaply 28'', "Glasbase" or "Dibiglass Base", Mecharncally Fastened 01 Hot Mopped, Membrane. "App@x 4.5m F(', "Dibiten Poly 4.5 Fr", (Modified Bitumen), Heat Welded. (UL Listing: R10167)

7. New low-slope Roof. Mnf: Owens Corning, Product Mineral Surface Roi!, Under1ayment 1/4" Dens Deck (to achieve required Class A fire rating) See cut sheets
8 New slope Roof. Mn!: Owens Corning, Product: Supreme Shingles. UL 790, ICC ESR 1372 {Class A rated). See cut sheet.

9. Deck Cooting . Mnf: Westcoat, Product AL.X, ICC ESR 2201 (Class A rated).

See cut sheet.

FYSB line
A302
% A302
6"/ 12"
__ extent of building below ___ _____ _
~- Eaves to be 6'' typ. UON INOTE I
OJ Proposed Roof Plan 114" = 1'-0"
I
I
I
7 4
7 Ii!!
I~
I~
IC/) 24" maximum projection from ext. face of wall ]
--------------------------------------------------- ----- I l~=============~~=~-extent of building bellow--------"}-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_.,..!,.. 1 -----------~ I 6"1 12" 6"/ 12"
FYSB line
_J
chimney location, see
AfYJ6 for height
ca1cu!ation
4 4
extent of building below
~
chimney location, see
A006 for height
calculation
Ev
~
6" /12"
6"
typ~ eave
O' 2' 4'
Q) aaii 1,... •
3i u
Q)
,+,-1
..c
u
!....
<C
u
.....J
--,
These drawings and
specificabons are the property
and copyright of the architect
and shaM not be used on any
other work except b',' agreement
with the architect.
a, I.()
I"-
(.) 0
N
C: 0)
<(
a, u
-c ..c
(.)
■- ro
u, (1)
co a, ro
0:: C:
ro
0 C: Cf)
- 0 0..
...... u, (I)
(1)
C: ,_
(.)
C:
.c: (1)
0 (9
('f)
-, 0
(0
~ C
C
0 I
i
~
Proiect number 17022
Drawn by TQ
Checked by JLG
Purpose SDP/ORP Submittal
A1 05 Roof Plan - New
230
.55'
1 _..,.. ----
_:---- .---
[I] South Elevation - New
1/4" ; 1'-0"
----....-.;;,,---
,.,..,,.,-------
II
DJ DD
- IT] South Elevation
- Existing
1/4" ; 1'-0"
25' offset (max. building h~ght)
. .
- ' ' I
~· : n ----
J
NOTE: All grades to be
(E) unless noted as proposed. See Civil sheets for all
proposed grade changes at street and front yard
101/2" _,,....,,,_
eavetyp
111, 1st-To of Plate
._., 217'-B 1/2"
QJ ;; I.- ■
.a 1 u
QJ
+-'
..c
u

1.-
<C
u
_.
--,
These drawings and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the architect
and shaU not be used on any
other work except by agreement
with the architect.
0 z
Q)
0 C:

Q)
-c
■-
u,
Q)
0:::

C:
0 u,
C:
.c
0 -,
Project number
D1a'M"I by
Checked by
LO
t--
0 N
0)
<(
0 ..c.
(..)
ro
Q)
OJ
ro
C
ro
0 Cf) -
CL
+-'
rn
Q)
,__
(..)
C
Q)
(9
C")
0 CD
17022
TQ
JLC
Purpose SDPIDRP Submittal
A201 Elevations
(E) grade at face of
residence [fl East Elevation - Existing 114" = 1'-0"
[][J]
2 ~ cross per A006
-5l
,/Cl
25' offset (max. height limit) T r 2
02 ©
r I 25' off,et(max. heghtlim,)
--
16' off5et (SOP threshold)
offset fo,so,th facing 2nd I 1,un1~~~:~'::~~~ _________ / /-------------~~~-~~~'.'.~~~-~~~~'.----:
224 02 top of ,to,y ,x;, ,;ano at g•~• ------------------------------------------------------ 224.02' -------------. ______ _______ :
~ ..................... .......... ........ . ........................ J~·.·· ........ . ~ .... ~;t . ...;;~;::: ~ t _22 ____________________________________________ ~---------------------- !
0 f
0 " ]
~ r
I
(E) and (NJ grade at
face of residence L L
1'-33/4"
architecwral projection into FYSB
L
[27 East Elevation - New 114" = 1'-D"
NOTE:

All grades to be (E) unless noted as proposed. See Civil sheets for all proposed grade changes at street and front yard
O' 2' 4' 8'
QJ a;; 1,... •
3i u
QJ
+-J
..c
u
I,..
<(
u
_J
--,
These dra.,.,;ngs and
specifications are the property
and copynght of the architect
and shaN not be used on any
other work ex~pt by agreement
with the architect.

Cl) I.{)
I'-
0 0
N
C: (J)
<{
Cl) 0
"'C .c
(.)
■- cu
u, Q)
Cl'.l Cl) cu
~ C
cu
0 C: CJ)
- 0 a..
..... u, en
Q)
C: ,._
(.)
C
.c: Q)
0 (9 ('I)
-, 0
co
;;
0 a
1 ,3
ci
z
Project number 17022
Dravm by TQ
Checked by JLC
Purpose SDP/ORP Submittal
A202 Elevations
~ I
~-
I
/
~ ., !_o~ of Plat<L I - - ~~ rn~ 21 7'-8 1/2" .-- //
~0R._0fFF 1/2"
~TQP of Plate
~81/2"
I
I
I
I
l
~ ~
I
,
,
,
'
- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- ---- - --- --- --- - ---- ------ - ---- -- (E) g1ade at ext wall of house IT] North Elevation - Existing 1/4" = 1'-0"
t
[27 North Elevation - New 1/4" = 1'-0"
t 25' offset (max. height ~mit)
·-----... __________ _ ~ ---------·----·---------·--·--··- nn
UJ extent of (El window--
{El & (NJ grade at ext. wall of house
t
I
I
--- ---- - ---
~
'-'
I 11 1 1 11
- - - - - -- - - --- - ------ - -- - - ----- -- -- -
NOTE:

All grades to be (E) unless noted as proposed. See Civil sheets for all proposed grade changes at street and front yard
- - -- - --
@ t ~o
[---·-- __ @]c: os,pe,A006 23256 max heghtof.io,ypoleaaoe ~ 41
12 --~------------·----------C ___ ___ _______ ___________ @Jbehmd _____________________ ______ __________ ____ ___ ____ J 230.55' g
226.71'
____ 1ij,
B
L L
·-t~ .':-:::1 ......................... 1
D
D l7
See 2/A204 for
heightcomfXiance
at~st@lev ation
2nd - To of FF
218'-10 1/2"
----------------------
O' 2' 4' 8'
OJ =a;
I,_,. - ::::J .
01 OJ
+-'
..c
u
I,_,.
<(
u
_J
--,
Theu drawings and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the architect
and shaN net be used on any
other work except by agreement
with the architect.
;;
C
ci
z
Cl)
0 C:

Cl)
"'C
■-
u,
Cl)
c:::

C:
0 u,
C:
.c
0 -,
Project number
Drawn by
Checked by
l{)
r--
0 N
0)
<(
0 - ..c::::
(.)
ro
Q)
al
ro
C
ro
0 CJ)
-

0..
_.

Cf)
Q)
,._
(.)
C
Q)
(9
("')
0 CD
17022
TQ
JLC
Purpose SDP/ORP Submittal
A203 Elevations
+-
[I] West Elevation - Existing
1/4" -1'-0"
See 2/A203 for height
compliance at entry
" i
.e
[2J west Elevation - new
1/4"-1'•0"
' 25' offset (max height limit) 1 l
~ 0--1----······
1 "
I
I
.J
[37 Partial West Elevation / Section - new 1/4" - 1'•0" n I I
A302
·····································-~
--------
.J
See 1/A202 for height compliance at gable
226 65'
See 3/A203 for elevation beyond deck
---------
(E) grade called out, prnpo5ed finish
grade to be 202.5' per story pole
certificabon
2 d T f FF '
NOTE:

All grades to be (E) unless noted as proposed. See Civil sheets for all proposed grade changes at street and front yard
Q) ...

I.... -
3i u
Q)
-+--'
..c
u
I....
<!
u
.....J
--,
These drawin'1' and
specifications .1re the property
and copyright of the architect
and shall nO( be used on any
othe, work except by ag1eement
with the architect.
0 z
Cl)
(.)
C:

Cl)
"'C
■-
u,
Cl)
~
C:
0 u,
C:
.c
0 -,
ProJect number
D1awn by
I[)
t--
0 N
(J)
<(
0 ..c
(.)
cu
(1)
co
cu
C
cu
0 Cf)
CL
.....

Cl)
(1)
._
(.)
C
(1)
(.9
C'0
0 <.O
17022
TQ
Checked by JLC ;l'
Purpose SDP/ORP Submittal ~
~ f------ ---1;.;
A204 i
{
D
i
Elevations
,lj
T
Master Bedroom Closet Master Bath
1,1.,-----------"'""------------1.1
Garage
L L
IT] Transverse Section 1 - Garage, Bedrooms 1/4" = 1'-0" Kitchen Dining
L L L
[37 Transverse Section 3 - Kitchen, Dining Room 1/4" = 1'-0" Unfinished Attic
Living
L L L
[5J Transverse Section 5 - Living Room 1/4" = 1'-0"
~
1st - To of Plate
217-81/2"
t
Office Landing
Pdrm
Hall
L L
[2J Transverse Section 2 - Stairs 1/4" = 1'-0"
Unfinished Attic
Flex Space Bathroom Hall
L
[4J Transverse Section 4 - Bedroom, Bath, Hall 1/4" = 1'-0" Unfinished Attic
Flex Space
L
[sJ Transverse Section 3 - Flex Space, Bedroom 1/4" = 1'-0" L
L
L
·see FAR table on A004 for
clerestory calculation at
stairs
1st - To of Plate
217'-81/2"
Bedroom
L
Bedroom
L
OJ ii
~
I.... ■
u .

OJ
+-' E
...c ]
~ E
u i 8
I.... ~
<C ~ ~ ~ "' u ~ e , ~
_J 0
1 ~
--, ~
These dfawings and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the archftect
and shall not be used on any
other work except 11)' agreement
with the architect.

Cl) LO
I'--
0 0
N
C: 0)
<(
Cl) 0
-c .c
(..)
■- co
u, (l)
co Cl) co
0::: C
co
0 C: (/)
- 0 a_
..... u, (/)
(l)
C: '-
(..)
C
.c: (l)
0 C) ("')
-, 0
co
Project number 17022
Drawnb'f TQ
Checked by JLC
Purpose SDP/ORP Submittal
A301 Sections
~ ~~~~6of,~r Pl
16' SOP th~• nold
~og_of FF
~1/2"
Closet Master Bath
Storage Garage
J
Longitudinal Section 1 - Garage, Living Room, Dining Room, IT] Master Closet 1/4" ; 1'-0"
,. 2Qd -_Top of Pia~ _ _
'17225'-10 1/2"
rlL_~ -_Top of FF _ _ _
'C7218'-10 1/2"
Master Bedroom Office
Laundry Hall
J
Longitudinal Section 2 - Laundry, Mudroom, Living Room , [27 Ktichen, Master Suite 1/4" ; 1'-0"
Unfinished Attic
cal-fill above (E) roof cal-fill above {E) roof
Unfinished Attic
Living Dining Bedroom
J JJ
Unfinished Attic
Living Kitchen Pan Bathroom
J
Bedroom
25' max. buidling height
I
lex Spac
- - 1st-26':i'fSJ. ~
(e) grade
0' 2' 4' 8'
QJ ; 1..- •
::, . ..... . u
QJ
+-'
..c E
u B I... ~ <( E
:a
u e
~ __J .i
--, ~
Th6e dr;r-Nings and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the architect
and shan not be used on any
other w ork except by agreement
with the architect
0 1
g
0 z
Cl)
0 C
Cl)
-c
■-
u,
Cl)
Q!
C
0 u,
C
.c
0 -,
Project num ber
Drawn by
Checked by
L!)
I'-
0 N
0)
<(
0 .c
(..)
cu
Q)
co
cu
C
cu
0 Cl)
-
CL
.....

If)
Q)
,._
(..)
C
Q)
('.)
(")
0 CD
17022
TO
JLC
Purpose SDP/ORP Su bmittal
A302 Sections
Unfinished Attic
f Plate " - - -
Master Bedroom
F ----
-Ll .. J
[fl Longitudinal Section 1 1/4" = 1'-0"
61 '-101/4" area of existing non-conforming
exterior wall extending 6 1/4" max. into front setback
[27 partial floor plan 1/8" = 1'-0"
..., exterior face of wall bel ~
7 [37 partial roof plan 1/8" = 1'-0"
-
u
Garage
See 1/A105for
full roof plan
..::::::::...

Master Bath
See 1/A102for
futlfloor plan
FYSsi
I
, Landing
Living
c;
J

17.20.030 Property Dcwelopmant Regulation s
(0)(4). Architectural features , such as eaves,
awnings, canopies, bay window'S and balconies
may project into required yards a maximum
distance of two feet; provided such appenda~s
are support~ only at, or behind, the building
setback line,
(E) envelope at
existing
nonconforming
portion of front of
residence
[4lsection 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
(E) envelope at
existing
nonconforming
portion of front of
residence
[57 section 4 1/4" = 1'-0"
,
Unfinished Attic
Dining
J
2'-0"
101/4"
projection
_1st-Top 11.f ff__L\ ,J---- 209'-7 1~
, ~
V"
-'
' '
' ' '
J
4 11•1''
,--------1,_.-piojection
'
t
~
1st
=i \_----
overhang to be supported behind FYSB hne, where occurs
1,•_, ..

I
[al section 5 1/4" = 1'-0"
O' 2' 4' 8'
These drawinr;r-, and
specifications are the property
and copyright of the architect
and sha• not be used on any
other work except by agreement
'Mth the architect
a, LO
I'--
(.) 0
N
C: (J)
<(
a, u
"C .r:.
(.)
■- ro
tn Q)
C()
a, ro
c::: C
ro
0 C: CJ)
- 0 CL
......
tn (/)
Q)
C: L..
(.)
C
.c Q)
0 c., (")
-, 0
CD
Project number 17022
Drawn by TQ
Checked by JLC
Purpose SDP/ORP Submittal
A303 Sections
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # C.1.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Resolution 2022-017 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional
Services Agreement with Van Dyke Landscape
Architects to Update the La Colonia Master Plan
BACKGROUND:

In 2006, members of the City Council expressed interest in developing a plan for making improvements to La Colonia Park and Community Center. In July 2006, the City Council established an Ad-Hoc Council Committee to work together with Staff, members of the Park and Recreation Commission and the community to develop recommendations for improving the park. The following month, the La Colonia Park Needs Assessment Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) formed to develop recommendations.

In May 2007, the Advisory Committee’s recommendations were presented to Council and Council authorized the release of a request for qualifications (RFQ) for conceptual design services for La Colonia Park facility improvements. Upon completion of the RFQ process, Van Dyke Landscape Architects (VDLA) was selected to perform the required tasks for the park. An agreement with VDLA for conceptual design services for the La Colonia Park Project was executed in April 2008. VDLA developed three conceptual design options based on the needs assessment recommendations for community and Council review. A preferred alternative was selected in December 2008.

Since the preferred alternative was selected, three components of the La Colonia Master Plan (Master Plan) were designed and/or constructed as separate projects. Construction of the Veterans’ Honor Courtyard was completed in May 2016, construction of the La Colonia Skate Park was completed in April 2019 and design is currently underway for a new playground. With the City’s purchase of the properties immediately north of the La Colonia Skate Park, analysis will need to be made on how to incorporate those properties into the existing park.

February 23, 2022
La Colonia Master Plan Update

Page 2 of 3 ends

This item is before the City Council for the consideration of Resolution 2022-017 (Attachment 1) authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with Van Dyke Landscape Architects that would update the La Colonia Master Plan, which would incorporate the vacant City-owned parcels immediately north of La Colonia Park.

DISCUSSION:

VDLA has been working on the Master Plan and individual components of the Master Plan since 2008, including preparation of the original Master Plan. VDLA is particularly qualified to provide landscape architectural design services for park and recreation facilities, having completed over 50 relevant park projects for municipalities throughout Southern California, including renovations to existing parks. They are a local, small business founded in 1972 with an office located on Stevens Avenue and have provided professional services for several government agencies, including the City of Solana Beach. In addition to having their office located in Eden Gardens, VDLA is extremely familiar with the local history, traditions and expectations of the neighborhood which they have derived from years of experience in and familiarity with the local environment.

Community members and Staff have come to know VDLA as a company that provides meaningful design options, well-prepared presentations, positive interpersonal interactions and comprehensive civic engagement.

The proposed PSA with VDLA would contain work required to update the La Colonia Master Plan and will include overall project management by their highly qualified team of professionals. The scope of work for the Master Plan would include:
• On-line survey for public input
• Regular meetings with City Staff
• Updating the AutoCAD drawings to reflect changes since the Master Plan was originally developed. Changes include construction of the Veterans’ Honor Courtyard and the La Colonia Skate Park
• Facilitation of two public workshops with user-friendly graphics • Development of two concept alternatives
• Attendance at two City Council meetings to present feedback and concept plan CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

Approval of the PSA with VDLA is not a project as defined by CEQA. CEQA determination will be determined as part of the approval of the Master Plan February 23, 2022
La Colonia Master Plan Update

Page 3 of 3 ends

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Capital Improvement Program budget contained in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 and FY 2022/23 Adopted Budget included $20,000 to update the La Colonia Park Master Plan. The proposal submitted by VDLA is for $52,140, which leaves a shortfall of $32,140.

Staff recommends that the shortfall of $32,140 be transferred from General Fund Undesignated Reserves into the project account for the La Colonia Master Plan Update.

WORK PLAN:

This project is consistent with Item B.2 of the Community Character Priorities of the FY 2021/22 Work Plan.

OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Approve Staff recommendation with modifications.
• Provide direction.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-017 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $52,140, with Van Dyke Landscape Architects for to update the La Colonia Master Plan, which would incorporate the vacant City-owned parcels north of the La Colonia Skate Park.

2. Authorizing an appropriation of $32,140 from the General Fund Undesignated Reserve Fund into the project account for the La Colonia Master Plan Update.

3. Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2021/2022 and FY 2022/23 Adopted Budget accordingly.

CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
_________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-017
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2022-017

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVES A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH VAN

DYKE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS TO UPDATE THE LA

COLONIA MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, a preferred alternative for a Master Plan at La Colonia Park was originally approved by the City Council in December 2008; and WHEREAS, since the preferred alternative was selected, three components of the La Colonia Master Plan (Master Plan) were designed and/or constructed as separate projects. Construction of the Veterans’ Honor Courtyard was completed in May 2016, construction of the La Colonia Skate Park was completed in April 2019 and design is currently underway of a new playground; and
WHEREAS, with the City’s purchase of the properties immediately north of the La Colonia Skate Park, analysis will need to be made on how to incorporate those properties into the existing park.

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

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $52,140, with Van Dyke Landscape Architects for to update the La Colonia Master Plan, which would incorporate the vacant City-owned parcels north of the La Colonia Skate Park.

3. That the City Council appropriates of $32,140 from the General Fund Undesignated Reserve Fund into the project account for the La Colonia Master Plan Update.

Resolution 2022-017
La Colonia Master Plan Update

Page 2 of 2 ends

4. That the City Council authorizes the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2021/2022 and FY 2022/23 Adopted Budget accordingly.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of February 2022, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Fire Department
SUBJECT: Presentation by the Fire Department and Fitch & Associates, LLC Regarding the Community Risk
Assessment and Standards of Cover, and the
Management/Administrative Assessment
BACKGROUND:

The cities of Solana Beach, Encinitas, and Del Mar contracted with Fitch & Associates, LLC, to provide a fire department Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover (SOC), and a management/administrative assessment. SOC is defined as those written policies and procedures that establish the distribution and concentration of fixed and mobile resources of an 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. This national deployment standard does not, however, 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 SOC document should be developed and adopted by the agency having jurisdiction. Like NFPA 1710, the SOC outlines an agency’s service level objectives; however, it uses a systems approach to deployment rather than a one-size-fits-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.

February 23, 2022
Fire Department Standards of Cover and Management/Administrative Assessment

Page 2 of 4 ends

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:
• Assessing fire and non-fire risks within the City Solana Beach • Defining baseline and benchmark emergency response performance standards • Planning future station locations
• Determining apparatus and staffing patterns
• Evaluating workload and ideal unit utilization
• Measuring service delivery performance
• Supporting strategic planning and policy development relative to resource procurement and allocation
Between August 2019 and June 2020, Fitch & Associates worked cooperatively with the Fire Department and labor representatives of the cities of Solana Beach, Encinitas, and Del Mar 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 1) and the Management/Administrative Assessment (Attachment 2).

This item is before the City Council to receive a presentation on the Community Risk Assessment and Standard of Cover and the Management/Administrative Assessment of the Fire Department conducted by Fitch & Associates and provide any necessary feedback.

DISCUSSION:

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. 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 1):

Outcome Measures and Analysis Recommendations:

The Fire Department should start tracking more closely the percentage of fire damage to structures within the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). 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 Fire Department should also consider validating its critical task analysis, especially in terms of effective response force (ERF) February 23, 2022
Fire Department Standards of Cover and Management/Administrative Assessment

Page 3 of 4 ends

capabilities. The Fire 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 Fire 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 2):
• 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 • Explore the feasibility of assigning all SOL and DMR fire apparatus repairs and maintenance to the ENC 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 our community.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This is a presentation item only. There is no immediate fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.

February 23, 2022
Fire Department Standards of Cover and Management/Administrative Assessment

Page 4 of 4 ends

WORK PLAN:

N/A
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Approve Staff recommendation with alternative amendments / modifications. • Deny Staff recommendation.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation from the Fire Department and Fitch and Associates, LLC, and provide feedback.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
_________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover – dated August 2021

2. Management/Administrative Assessment – dated October 2021 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
FITCH
--
& ASSOCIATES
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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
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 ncinitas
\
Solana Beach ·
\ o I Mar Station
\
i Del Mar \
\
\ Mllu
3 San Diego
Legend
FreS~n
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.

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
[Q)
2019 Popu la:ion Den!lt'J 1Poo oer Square Mile )
(&ri'
11111 24 00 - 629 00 peoole per eq mi
11111 15 80 - 24 000 oeople pe• !O mi
8,400 - 15.80 peoole per ~q m,
1,000 - 8. 4 0 oeople pe• •q mi
- 1, 0 people oer ,q m,
F
F
F
F
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
[Q)
201°-2 24 Pooula ·on: A'lnual Grom Rate
(E.ri)
... 1.9-53.3%

1.25'"",to 1.9%
",,:o 1.259t,
-1.250,,to0'l<o
-1.9% :o · .25":,
Illa -2.1 to-1 .9%
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
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
[Q)
201H,,'edia Age (Esri)
53 - 86 yea•• o age
45 - 53 years o age
36 - 45 yea•• o age
1111111 28 - 36 yea•• o age
1111111 - 28 years of age
F
F
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.
[Q]
2019 ~•ed1an Ho1.;:e;ehold Income (f gri)
• S 117,900-200100
• S82600-117.900
S 47 400-82600
11111 $12100 - 47400
. S0-1210
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.

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 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 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
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
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
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
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.

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
D
OD
DO
DD
DD
D D D

D CJ CJ
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.

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.

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
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
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
■
■
■
■
■
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
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
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.

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.

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).

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
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.

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.

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
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 I• • •
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
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
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 I• • •
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
■ ■ ■ I

I I I I
■ ■ ■ I
I
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

0.2 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 I• • • I
I I
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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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)
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 I • ■ ■
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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%

1.8%

6.7%

19.1%

27.7%

22.4%

11.5%

4.5%

2.2%

1.1% 0.8%

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”
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
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) High Probability
Low Consequence
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 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.

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 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 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)
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. (Q)
2019 Popula:io"I Density (Poo o~r Square Mile)
(E.ni)
Illa 24 CO • 629 00 peooie per :!q mi
• 15 80 • 24 0 0 oeople pe· sq mi
8400 • 15.800 people per •q mi
1,000 • 8400 people pe• sq mo
0 • 1,000 people oer 9:q mi
0 0
0 0
0 0
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.

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

DMR ENC SOL JPA
URBAN/ RURAL Incident Density
- URBAN
- RURAL
i;;i JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
\
4 .:... ◊
... '
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.

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.

Swomi's
S1C11eMrmne
Conservor,011
'"'

DMR ENC SOL JPA
JPA Incidents Only
■ Encinitas at 6 minutes
• 6 minute drive time zones
[I JPA Fire Stations not in plan
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
2 \ ._ l
l ,
---
/
"r-..,..,..,,,.

I'"
./
~L"""" "
. ., / ,,,
~f
! 3 ✓
. ~· ';;<> ✓
-...

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.

Swam,~
SwreMarine
Consen,of1on

DMR ENC SOL JPA
Post Plan
■ ALL JPA Stations at 6 minutes
6 minute drive time zones
- In Plan
Not in Plan
□ JPA Fire Stations not in plan
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
I 2 6
i
- JI er!.?"- ~•-
,( I l
' I
,,..-..... ,
\
,/
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%
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.

DMR ENC SOL JPA
ENC Only Posts with S6
■ Encinitas Client Posts at 6U/ 10R
Drive ti me zones
• 6 minutes
10 minutes
■ JPA Fire Stations not in plan
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
,__,,- J '\ . ._
I
J \ ,. ....
/
(
\
,- '\
/ ', )
✓
\ '
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

DMR ENC SOL JPA
ENC Only with S3, S5 and S6
■ Encinitas Client Posts at 6U/10R
Drive ti me zones
• 6 minutes
- 10 minutes
JPA Fire Stations not in plan
<; Outside Agency Fire Stations
( '
/
\
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

DMR ENC SOL JPA
JPA Incidents Only
■ Encinitas at 6 minutes
• 6 minute drive time zones
• JPA Fire Stations not in plan
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations ).

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
[Q)
2019-2 24 Pooulation: Annual Gro,,"t Rate
(Ee ri}
... 1.9-53.3%

1.25i,, to 1.9%
,,:,:o 1.25<!,,
-1.25'>:, to 09;,
-1.9:ib :o -1.25"!.
llit -2.1 to -1 .9%
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
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
[Q)
201H,,'edia Age (Esri)
53 - 86 yea•• o age
45 - 53 years o age
36 - 45 yea•• o age
1111111 28 - 36 yea•• o age
1111111 - 28 years of age
F
F
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.

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% I- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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
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%

13.3%

25.3% 28.9%

24.1%
One Unit
Two Units
Three Units
Four Units
Five Units
Six Units
≥ Seven Units
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
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
S1areMarine
(anservarran
hW

DMR ENC SOL JPA
Encinitas Heat FIRE Incidents
- > 0.0
JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
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.

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
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 SwomJ's
State Manne
Conservouon
'"'

DMR ENC SOL JPA
Risk Locations
e JPA RISKS ALL - HIGH
■ JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
2 I
t
~-
ENS
■
6 EN6
■
~1-:L
I
;
1 ' !
~ .;
"'" ...... _,.......,
.. - II"
""-

0.!,ich(~rll,i
,.
, .. ✓ .,I'
/ f-~-lt
f 3
·;;o .I ~· ~.,,.,, ~
... -....

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

DMR ENC SOL JPA
Risk Locations
e JPA RISKS ALL - MOD
■ JPA Fire Stations
✓-
l
!
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
J
1 /
\
\
"l
0 a
2 \-
' "--
-
.. ,EN4
t] l
> l
I
0 ! ......,,....,,
\, b
0 I
~
6 ,,
·~ ,.., ,,
~
,,,
"
.. - /
""-
ho""" >,
., ,,✓ ,'
,, "
·-~--ft
r 3
·;o .,., .I ~.,.,. ~
l
' / ! .
' ... -....
._..,,, ...
\
)
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

DMR ENC SOL JPA
Risk Locations
e JPA RISKS ALL - LOW
■ JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
J
1 6
l
' !
""-
~
,,✓ ,,
. /
'
._..,,, ...
nc......,_,......_.
.. - /
ho""" >,
.,
,'
"
·-~--ft
r 3
·;o .,., .I ~.,,.,. ~
... -....

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 Moderate Risk
• Single-family residential
• Detached structures
• Transportation vehicles
• Automatic alarm with
water flow
• Wildland fires
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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.

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
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.

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 I=
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
Swom,·1
s,areMorint

DMR ENC SOL JPA
Encinitas Heat EMS Incidents
- > 0.0
JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
............. ,
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.

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.

The Top 10 Leading Causes of Death, San Diego County, 2018 Cancer
Diseases o' eart
Al e erdisease
Stro e
Accide s (uni en ona 11111mes)
Chronic lower res r.itory d ases
1 467
1,458
1,282
1,0 13
abetes - 778
nflue za and poeumon,a 452
Esse tial hype nsion a d yperte s· ere al di ase - 451
n tlonal s f-harm (suicide)
0 448
1000 2000 3000
5 013
4,699
- Communicable
- on-communicable
4000 5000 6000
- HHSA 1
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.

Moderate Risk
• Bravo Level Incidents
C arlie Level Incidents
Most Delta Level Incidents

DISTRIBUTION
Special Risk
• Events that require long
durations and/or exceed
regional Initial response
capablltles

CONSEQUENCES
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
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
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.

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

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.

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 S.,a,,.,,-, SrouMar,n,

DMR ENC SOL JPA
Encinitas Heat HAZMAT Incidents
- >0.0
-
0 1 2
-- 3 4+
■ JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
.....
/ ✓
l
I (
~-"'
.JO
,.
•
! 3
-~ ✓
. -· ~✓
~--
,,.. ......... ,
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 Moderate Rf sk (Tier 2)
Mu lplc Reports with un own
situatlon.s
Cbndestlne Drug ubs
Hnillrd.s to llfe ;and hca th
S gnlfkant rclnsc Into the
rnvl onmrnt

DISTRIBUTIO

CO SEQUENCES
Special Ris
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
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.

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 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
Swam,·,
S1<>1tMn11nf
c,htor,on

DMR ENC SOL JPA
Encinitas Heat RESCUE Incidents
- > 0.0
. 2.5
O s
• 7.5
- 10+
JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
I
/
I
,,..-..........
).

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.

Moderate Risk
Operat ions and Technical
Level Incidents t hat require
addit ional resources and will
require technical assistance

DISTRIBUTION

CONSEQUENCES
Special Risk
Events that require long
durations and/or exceed
regional initial response
capabilities
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
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
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.

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.

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

Olathe, Kansas: Author.

State of normalcy 7
"' E
i=
~ C
g_
VI
QJ
a:
~ a
fEmergency event initiation, soft data
I
Emergency event, soft data
Alarm, soft data
Notification, soft data
]
J
7 Alarm processing, hard data
Turnout t ime, hard data
Travel time, ha rd data
On-scene, hard data
Initiation of action, soft data D ~--T-e_r_m_i_n_a_t-io_n_ o_f_a_c_t_io_n_,_h_-a rd_ d_a_t_a-~] State of normalcy j
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 ,- IIESIDINTW / SPIINllER
,/ AiCllVAJ'ES
:'
:'
:'
:'
,
/ - Wllhoat flrt s,dnlders. o<YI oC
1 / l>Q,-it ....._ li1nili<H1tly ,,/
' ' I
' I
' :
' I
I
I
' ' ' '
,- COMMEIICIAL i' SPRINQ.U
// t\CTIWITH
,
:~/
' ' '
,,, ,,,- FIIEFIGHTHS 019 /' HOSE NIJZUH
RIE ~IOWTH lllSTAICJtD
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 Ir n
I
Time
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.

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.

Cnence o r succe N 111ouced
7-10% ea cn m l nule
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.

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.

DMR ENC SOL JPA
JPA Incidents Only
■ Encinitas at 6 minutes
• 6 minute drive time zones
• JPA Fire Stations not in plan
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
I '
~ " I
).

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 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)
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).

0.30 UHU
- IAFF

0.25 0.20 Q)
...
0:: "'
C
0 0.15 ·;:;
"' N
·;:;
=,

0.10 0.05

0.00 <-, -,,"v -,," ,,,'), ,,,,,, ,,,~ ~ ?! ,;,,"I ~,,, -,,'o ~~ ◊ ◊ ◊ "'"' ◊ ~"'"' ~'),'? ◊ Q.,(I,, Q. ,,,\), Q.)
-,,'> ~!><
'}."'"' '<>~ ◊
~'?
'<>~
Unit
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)
■ - - - -
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)
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)
I ■ - - - -
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)
• I I I - - - -
I • - - -
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)
_J ■--- •
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
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).

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.

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
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
■
■
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
■
■
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
■
■
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
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.

DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 152 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 78: 6-Minute ERF
Swami's
StottMor,ne
Comervol!an
"''"

DMR ENC SOL JPA
ERF Personnel Depth
JPA ERF Depth at 6 minutes
• 0-2
- 2-4
- 4-6
6-8
8 - 10
10 - 12
12 - 14
- 14-16
- 16-18
- 18- 20
■ JPA Fire Stations
w,,,,.-
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
V 2 \._ <A6 I ~~)· 1 t.ic.,..~
o,1-...... ,
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 153 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 79: 8-Minute ERF
Swami's
SwtrManne
Consef\lot1an

DMR ENC SOL JPA
ERF Personnel Depth
JPA ERF Depth at 8 minutes
- 0-3
- 3-5
- 5-8
8 - 10
10 - 13
13 - 16
16 - 18
- 18 - 21
- 21- 23
- 23 - 26
■ JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
l
I
""" ........

DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 154 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 80: 10-Minute ERF
Swami's
SwtrManne
Consef\lot1an

DMR ENC SOL JPA
ERF Personnel Depth
JPA ERF Depth at 10 minutes
- 0-3
- 3-5
- 5-8
8 - 10
10 - 13
13 - 16
16 - 18
- 18 - 21
- 21- 23
- 23 - 26
■ JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
'. '
,rr......., '
l
' !
uc. • ....,.
y ..... ,,;? .,, ,, ·-~~r
! 3
·;;o ,I .,., ~.,., ~
: "'
'
""" ........

DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 155 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 81: 12-Minute ERF
Swami's
SwtrManne
Consef\lot1an

DMR ENC SOL JPA
ERF Personnel Depth
JPA ERF Depth at 12 minutes
- 0-3
- 3-5
- 5-8
8 - 10
10 - 13
13 - 16
16 - 18
- 18 - 21
- 21- 23
- 23 - 26
■ JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
'. '
,rr......., '
l
' !
uc. • ....,.
y ..... ,,;? .,, ,, ·-~~r
! 3
·;;o ,I .,., ~.,., ~
: "'
'
""" ........

DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 156 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Figure 82: 14-Minute ERF
Swami's
SwtrManne
Consef\lot1on

DMR ENC SOL JPA
ERF Personnel Depth
JPA ERF Depth at 14 minutes
- 0-3
- 3-5
- 5-8
8 - 10
10 - 13
13 - 16
16 - 18
- 18 - 21
- 21- 23
- 23 - 26
■ JPA Fire Stations
♦ Outside Agency Fire Stations
'. '
,rr......., '
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.

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
Vehicles
Available
Average
90th
Percentile
Sample Size
Calls Calls
% of
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 jurisdiction, those two calls would be captured as overlapped calls.

ENC, and SOL units have not yet been cleared, and another request for service occurs in DMR’s jurisdiction). For example, if there is an ongoing call in DMR’s jurisdiction wherein all DMR, (or jurisdiction) while one or more calls are already ongoing for the same demand zone (or Overlapped or simultaneous calls are defined as another call being received in a demand zone Overlapped or Simultaneous Call Analysis
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
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.

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 ~ 111
u
"O
Ql
C.

C.
~ Ql
>
0 -
0 Ql
bO
111
...

C
Ql
~ Ql

0..
25 20
15 10
5 0

DMR ENC
Jurisdiction
SOL
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
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
-
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
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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 177 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Attachment A
Data Report
DMR, ENC, SOL Fire Departments Page 178 © Fitch & Associates, LLC Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover May 2021
Attachment B
GIS Report

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
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
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
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
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.

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.

SOUDMR/ENC Shared Overhead
DMR SOl
Population Served 4,268 13,838
Area Served 2 3
,-io. Calls 462 1,425
No. Personnel (SUfll>!!!!!I 9 18

DMR SOL
10% Equal Share 3.333333333 3.333333333
20% Population 1.06 3.45
20% Area Served 1.46 2.76
20% Calls for Service 1.19 3.66
30% Personnel 3.46 6.92

10.51 20.13

10.51 % 20.13%
ENC
62,183
19 5,899
51 ENC

3.333333333

15.49 15.77

15.15 19.62

69.36 69.36%
Total
80,289
25 7,786
78 Total
10 20
20 20
30 100
100%
Current Formula
10% Equal Share
20% Population
20% Area Served
20% Calls for Service
30% Personnel
FY 20/21 Original Allocation:

Del Mar
Solana Beach
Encinitas

10.508%

20.128%

69.364%
FY 20/21 New Adjusted Approved Allocation w/Admln Fees:

Del Mar 11 . 739%
Solana Beach
Encinitas
21 .063%

67.198%
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 ,...

Olief
I I
St.Mpnt. ~ Fire Marine
- Analyst Cllllf - - Man.hal Safety
~In
IMS ..... CDonl. Allllla
St. Oep,ty S,, Oep,ty Mpnt. I I Fire Fire
- Marine - Analyst - Marshal M:anhal Safety u. - ,....,,.,, ........ ....... htblon lhltalon CHef Chief CMef
Chief A • C
I I Admln.
s..,po,1 Deputy ... Marine
- Fire Safety
C.OOrd. I - M,n~hal ....... - st'· -
0 0 ,....,. Marine 2
- Assistant Safety
Sgt. - 0 3 0
0 8 Marine
Safety
Sgt. - '
~ 8 Marine
Safety - l
Sgt.

I LEGEND I Encinitas Solana Beach Del Mar CSA-17
Shared All CJ CJ
Not Shared CJ CJ CJ
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.

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?
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 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

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 -------
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 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, 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 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 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.

Solana Beach City CouncilFebruary 23, 2022

Solana Beach City Council
February 23, 2022