HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-19; City Council; ; Report on Fire Department Standards of Coverage, Potential Deployment Improvements~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
May 19, 2020
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Nick Ordille, Assistant Fire Chief
nick.ordille@carlsbadca.gov, 760-931-2123
CA Review AF
Subject: Report on Fire Department Standards of Coverage, Potential Deployment
Improvements
Recommended Action
Receive a report on the 2020 Standards of Coverage and potential service and deployment
improvements.
Executive Summary
The Fire Department contracted with Citygate Associates, LLC, in November 2019 to create a
Standards of Cover. Standards of Cover is a document that details a systems-based approach to
fire department deployment that uses local risks and demographics to determine the level of
protection that best fits a department's needs. It is intended to identify current services and
appropriate services levels while providing a uniform and ongoing foundation for fire and
ambulance service planning. Staff, along with Citygate, will present an overview of the
Standards of Cover findings, which include recommended performance measures and options
for phased improvements in deployment, for the council's consideration. Staff is seeking the
council's direction on these options and, if the council so directs, will return at a later date with
information on the cost of the proposed improvements.
Discussion
Policy choices
While the body of regulations on fire services state that if fire services are provided, local, state
and federal regulations relating to firefighter and citizen safety must be followed, there are no
mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of fire service staffing, response times
or outcomes. The level of fire protection services provided is a matter of local policy decisions
and finances. These policy decisions, which are the basis for a department's standards of cover,
focus on the following considerations:
Speed and weight
Typically, deployment is about what are called the speed and the weight of the department's
response to calls for service. Speed focuses on how quickly the first neighborhood-based fire
unit arrives at the site of an incident. Weight refers to the multiple units dispatched for larger
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 1 of 190
responses, commonly called a first alarm and known in firefighting as an effective response
force. This is the level of force needed for more serious emergenci.es, such as building fires,
multiple-patient medical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication required or certain
rescues. Speed and weight are major factors to consider in designing performance measure
polices for a fire department to monitor its operations and for planning.
Community risk assessment
The broad objectives of a community risk assessment are to identify specific hazards to the
community. The assessment quantifies the risk of each hazard based on the probability it will
occur and the likely severity of its impacts. The community risk assessment establishes a
foundation for current or future risk reduction as well as hazard mitigation planning and
evaluation.
Service demand
Service demand refers to the volume of calls for service and is analyzed through specific
metrics. These metrics are incident type, service demand by station, service demand by hour of
the day, simultaneous incident activity by jurisdiction and station, and the amount of time
ambulances spend on calls.
Current response performance
Current national best practice when evaluating performance is to measure percent completion
of a goal (e.g., 90 percent of responses) instead of an average measure. Response performance
is measured in this Standards of Cover by the 90th percentile time and is compared against
Citygate's best practice-based recommendations, which are based on National Fire Protection
Administration and Insurance Service Office industry standards. Response performance
considers both geographic distribution, which is the spacing of first due units,1 and
concentration, which analyzes whether fire stations are close enough to one another so that
building fires can receive resources from multiple stations quickly.
Performance measure recommendations
Staff recommends the City Council consider adopting complete performance measures to aid in
deployment planning and to monitor performance. The time standards in these performance
measures should be designed to deliver outcomes that will save patients when possible and
keep small but serious fires from becoming more serious. Staff recommends the following:
Distribution (first due units): To treat pre-hospital medical emergencies and control small fires,
the first due unit should arrive within 7 minutes and 30 seconds 90% of the time from the
receipt of the 911 call at city dispatch. This equates to a 90-second dispatch time, a 2-minute
company turnout time and a 4-minute travel time.
Multiple-unit effective response force for serious emergencies: To confine building fires near
the room of origin, keep vegetation fires under five acres in size, extricate trapped victims
within 30 minutes and treat multiple medical patients at a single incident, a multiple unit
effective response force should arrive within 11 minutes and 30 seconds from the time of a 911
1 First-due refers to the first unit to arriving at the site of a fire call or other emergency.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 2 of 190
call being received at city dispatch 90% of the time. This equates to a 90-second dispatch time,
2-minute company turnout time, and an 8-minute travel time.
Hazardous materials response: Hazardous materials response is designed to protect the city
from the hazards associated with uncontrolled release of hazardous and toxic materials. The
fundamental mission of the department's response is to isolate the hazard, deny entry into the
hazard zone, and notify appropriate officials/resources to minimize impacts on the community.
This can be achieved with a first-due total response time of 7 minutes and 30 seconds, 90% of
the time from the receipt ofthe 911 call at North Comm or less to provide initial hazard
evaluation and/or mitigation actions. After the initial evaluation is completed, a determination
can be made whether to request additional resources from the regional hazardous materials
team.
Technical rescue: Technical rescue emergencies2 are managed as efficiently and effectively as
possible with enough trained personnel to facilitate a successful rescue with a first-due total
response time of 7 minutes and 30 seconds, 90% of the time from the receipt of the 911 call at
North Comm3 or less to evaluate the situation and/or initiate rescue actions. Following the
initial evaluation, additional resources should be assembled as needed within a total response
time of 11 minutes and 30 seconds 90% of the time to safely complete rescue and/or
extrication and delivery of the victim to the appropriate emergency medical care facility.
Deployment findings
Based on risk assessment, coupled with service demand and response performance, Citygate
has identified the following deployment findings.
• Fire unit's travel times are longer than typical industry best practices, hindered by the
road network and traffic congestion
• Call processing time and crew turnout times are within recommended best practices
• Call-to-arrival time, at 8 minutes, 51 seconds is significantly longer than the best
practice of 7 minutes, 30 seconds
• Ambulance capacity is saturated at peak hours
• Simultaneous incidents occur routinely in Fire district 1, which covers the downtown
Village area, impacting travel time
• Response times and ambulance capacity can only be improved with added units at more
than one location
• Emergency medical service growth, infill development and traffic congestion have
overcome a six-station model if industry standard response times are the goal
Possible deployment improvement considerations
Phase 1-Immediate Enhancement Consideration
• Enhance ambulance service as soon as practical by adding two additional ambulances
2 Technical rescues refer to rescues in confined spaces, such as in a vehicle over the side of a road or someone
stuck in a collapsing trench; a cliff or water rescue or other particularly difficult rescue operations.
3 The North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority, commonly called North Comm, provides fire and medical
emergency dispatch services to most city fire departments in north San Diego County.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 3 of 190
• Consider moving to a one paramedic/firefighter and 1 emergency medical technician
deployment model
• Re-allocate one current paramedic firefighter to staff a fourth position on the ladder
truck for effective multiple unit response
Phase 2 -Short-term enhancement consideration
• Consider adding a Fire Station 7 on the coast south of the Village to control travel times
in the north-west quadrant
• . Move the ladder truck/quint4 from Station 5 to Station 7
• Add an engine company at Station 5
Phase 3 -Long-term enhancement consideration
• Consider planning for the addition of two stations in South La Costa and staff these with
fast response squads for rapid EMS first respon se and first aid firefighting, pending the
arrival of the nearest engine company.
Fiscal Analysis
There are no fiscal impacts or consideration to receive this Standards of Coverage presentation.
Should the council consider any of the enhancement phases, staff will bring forward an
additional report with a detailed fiscal analysis for each phase.
Next Steps
With council's direction, staff will return at a later date with proposed Fire Department
response performance measures and a financial analysis of the deployment options detailed
above for the City Council's consideration.
Environmental Evaluation {CEQA)
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project"
within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that it has no potential to
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment, and therefore does not require environmental review.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. 2020 Standards of Cover 5-13-2020
2. Citygate presentation
4 A quint is a fire service apparatus that has all of these five firefighting tools: Hose, tank, pump, aerial ladder and
ground ladders
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 4 of 190
.. r·1 .. CITYGftTf ftSS~ClftTfS, LLC
•• PUB LI C SAFETY SERV I CES
STANDARDS OF COVERAGE STUDY
AND AMBULANCE OPERATIONS
ANALYSIS
VOLUME 1 OF 2: TECHNICAL REPORT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MAY 13, 2020
··n --CITYGftTf ftSS~ClftTfS, llC
CELEBRATING 30 YEARS! 1990 I 2020
WWW.CITYGATEASSOCIATES.COM
600 COOLIDGE DR., STE.150 PHONE: (916) 458-5100
FOLSOM, CA 95630 FAX: (916) 983-2090
{city of
Carlsbad
Califo r nia
Exhibit 1
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 5 of 190
This page was intentionally left blank
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 6 of 190
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 of 2—Technical Report (this volume)
Section Page
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Policy Choices Framework ........................................................................................................................ 1
Overall Summary of Fire Resource Deployment ....................................................................................... 1
Overall Evaluation and Summary Recommendations ................................................................................ 2
Challenge #1: Response Times ..................................................................................................... 2
Challenge #2: Ambulance Capacity .............................................................................................. 5
Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 6
Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 8
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Section 1—Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Report Organization .................................................................................................................... 11
1.1.1 Goals of the Report ......................................................................................................... 11
1.1.2 Limitations of the Report ................................................................................................ 12
1.2 Project Approach and Scope of Work ......................................................................................... 12
1.2.1 Project Approach and Research Methods ....................................................................... 12
1.2.2 Project Scope of Work .................................................................................................... 13
1.3 City Overview ............................................................................................................................. 13
1.4 Fire Department Overview .......................................................................................................... 14
1.4.1 Daily Staffing .................................................................................................................. 15
Section 2—Standards of Coverage Assessment ...................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Standards of Coverage Process Overview ................................................................................... 17
2.2 Current Deployment .................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.1 Current Deployment Model ............................................................................................ 21
2.3 Outcome Expectations ................................................................................................................. 23
2.4 Community Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................... 25
2.4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................... 26
2.4.2 Values at Risk to Be Protected ........................................................................................ 26
2.4.3 Hazard Identification ....................................................................................................... 28
2.4.4 Risk Assessment Summary ............................................................................................. 30
2.5 Critical Task Time Measures—What Must Be Done Over What Time Frame to Achieve the
Stated Outcome Expectation? ...................................................................................................... 31
2.5.1 Critical Firefighting Tasks .............................................................................................. 31
2.5.2 Critical Medical Emergency Tasks ................................................................................. 34
2.5.3 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force Size ............................................. 34
2.6 Distribution and Concentration Studies—How the Location of First-Due and First Alarm
Resources Affects Emergency Incident Outcomes ...................................................................... 36
2.6.1 Deployment Baselines ..................................................................................................... 37
2.6.2 Road Mile Coverage Measures ....................................................................................... 40
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 7 of 190
2.7 Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 41
2.7.1 Demand for Service ........................................................................................................ 42
2.7.2 Simultaneous Incident Activity ....................................................................................... 46
2.7.3 Workload by Unit-Hour Utilization ................................................................................ 48
2.7.4 Operational Performance ................................................................................................ 51
2.8 Overall Deployment Evaluation .................................................................................................. 58
2.8.1 Deployment Improvement Scenarios .............................................................................. 59
2.8.2 Reducing Remaining Response Time Gaps in Southeast Carlsbad ................................ 62
2.8.3 Ambulance Economics ................................................................................................... 63
2.8.4 Ambulance Staffing Options ........................................................................................... 65
2.8.5 Comprehensive Evaluation and Recommendations ........................................................ 67
Appendix A—Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 73
A.1 Community Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................... 73
A.1.1 Risk Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................... 73
A.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary ............................................................................................. 74
A.1.3 Planning Zones ................................................................................................................ 75
A.1.4 Values at Risk to Be Protected ........................................................................................ 76
A.1.5 Hazard Identification ....................................................................................................... 81
A.1.6 Service Capacity ............................................................................................................. 83
A.1.7 Probability of Occurrence ............................................................................................... 83
A.1.8 Impact Severity ............................................................................................................... 84
A.1.9 Overall Risk .................................................................................................................... 85
A.1.10 Building Fire Risk ........................................................................................................... 86
A.1.11 Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk ....................................................................................... 89
A.1.12 Medical Emergency Risk ................................................................................................ 93
A.1.13 Hazardous Material Risk ................................................................................................. 96
A.1.14 Technical Rescue Risk .................................................................................................... 99
Table of Tables
Table 1—Call to Arrival Analysis – 2019 ..................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2—Travel – 90 Percent Performance – 2019 ....................................................................................................... 3
Table 3—Travel Time Decay From 2013 to 2019 – 90 Percent Performance............................................................... 4
Table 4—EMS Incident Growth and City Deployment Changes Since 1990 ............................................................... 5
Table 5—Constant Daily Staffing ............................................................................................................................... 15
Table 6—Standards of Coverage Process Elements .................................................................................................... 18
Table 7—Fire Service Deployment Paradigm ............................................................................................................. 19
Table 8—Response Plan by Incident Type .................................................................................................................. 22
Table 9—Overall Risk by Hazard ............................................................................................................................... 31
Table 10—First Alarm Residential Fire Critical Tasks – 15 Personnel ....................................................................... 33
Table 11—Cardiac Arrest Critical Tasks – 5 Personnel – Engine (3 Personnel) and Rescue Ambulance (2
Personnel) .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 12—Service Area Road Mile Coverage Comparison (No Mutual Aid) ............................................................ 40
Table 13—Incidents: Quantity by Incident Type – 2019 ............................................................................................ 45
Table 14—Incidents: Quantity by Property Use – 2019 .............................................................................................. 46
Table 15—Proportion of Simultaneous Incidents – 2019 ............................................................................................ 47
Table 16—Unit-Hour Utilization – Engine Companies – 2019................................................................................... 49
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 8 of 190
Table 17—Unit-Hour Utilization – Rescue Ambulances – 2019 ................................................................................ 50
Table 18—Call Processing – 90 Percent Performance – 2019 .................................................................................... 52
Table 19—Turnout – 90 Percent Performance – 2019 ................................................................................................ 52
Table 20—Travel – 90 Percent Performance – 2019 ................................................................................................... 53
Table 21—Travel by Station Area – 90 Percent Performance – 2019 ......................................................................... 53
Table 22—Travel Time Decay From 2013 to 2019 – 90 Percent Performance ........................................................... 54
Table 23—Call to Arrival – 90 Percent Performance – 2019 ...................................................................................... 57
Table 24—Distribution – Effective Response Force (First Alarm) – Travel – 90 Percent Performance – 2019 ......... 58
Table 25—Service Area Road Mile Coverage Improvements Comparison – Scenarios #1 and #2 (No Mutual
Aid) ............................................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 26—FY 18/19 Revenue Summary and FY 19/20 Revenue Estimate ................................................................ 64
Table 27—FY 20/21 Projected Additional Revenues.................................................................................................. 64
Table 28—Personnel Cost of Adding One Rescue Ambulance and a Seventh Fire Station ........................................ 66
Table 29—Personnel Cost of Adding a Fourth and Fifth Rescue Ambulance ............................................................ 66
Table 30—EMS Incident Growth and City Deployment Changes Since 1990 ........................................................... 68
Table 31—Overall Risk by Hazard ............................................................................................................................. 75
Table 32—Key Demographic Data – City of Carlsbad ............................................................................................... 77
Table 33—Critical Facilities........................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 34—Probability of Occurrence Scoring Criteria ............................................................................................... 84
Table 35—Impact Severity Scoring Criteria ............................................................................................................... 85
Table 36—Overall Risk Score and Rating................................................................................................................... 86
Table 37—Building Fire Service Demand by Planning Zone ..................................................................................... 88
Table 38—Building Fire Risk Assessment by Planning Zone .................................................................................... 89
Table 39—Recent Large Wildland Fires in San Diego County ................................................................................... 92
Table 40—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Service Demand by Planning Zone .................................................................. 93
Table 41—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk Assessment by Planning Zone ................................................................. 93
Table 42—Medical Emergency Service Demand by Planning Zone .......................................................................... 95
Table 43—Medical Emergency Risk Assessment by Planning Zone .......................................................................... 96
Table 44—Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic ......................................................................................................... 97
Table 45—Hazardous Material Service Demand by Planning Zone ........................................................................... 98
Table 46—Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment by Planning Zone ......................................................................... 99
Table 47—Earthquake Risk Assessment by Planning Zone ...................................................................................... 101
Table 48—Technical Rescue Service Demand by Planning Zone ............................................................................ 103
Table 49—Technical Rescue Risk Assessment by Planning Zone ............................................................................ 104
Table of Figures
Figure 1—2013–2019 Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by Station With Linear Department-Wide
Forecast ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2—Fire Stations and Resident Population Density .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 3—Fractile versus Average Response Time Measurements ............................................................................ 24
Figure 4—Overall Risk ............................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 5—Building Fire Progression Timeline ........................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6—Survival Rate versus Time to Defibrillation ............................................................................................... 30
Figure 7—Annual Service Demand by Year ............................................................................................................... 42
Figure 8—Number of Incidents by Year by Incident Type ......................................................................................... 43
Figure 9—Service Demand by Hour of Day and Year ................................................................................................ 43
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 9 of 190
Figure 10—Number of Incidents by Station ................................................................................................................ 44
Figure 11—Number of Simultaneous Incidents by Year............................................................................................. 47
Figure 12—Number of Single-Station Simultaneous Incidents by Station by Year .................................................... 48
Figure 13—Fractile for All Incidents Travel (CAD) – 2019 ....................................................................................... 54
Figure 14—2013–2019 Straight-Line Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by Station With 2030
Forecast .................................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 15—2013–2019 Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by Station With Linear Department-Wide
Forecast .................................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 16—Fractile for Incidents Call to First Arrival – 2019 .................................................................................... 57
Figure 17—FY 18/19 Ambulance Transport Payor Mix ............................................................................................. 64
Figure 18—Overall Risk ............................................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 19—Risk Planning Zones ................................................................................................................................. 76
Figure 20—Commission on Fire Accreditation International Hazard Categories ....................................................... 82
Figure 21—Building Fire Progression Timeline ......................................................................................................... 87
Figure 22—Very High Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones – City of Carlsbad ...................................................... 90
Figure 23—Survival Rate versus Time to Defibrillation ............................................................................................. 94
Figure 24—Probable Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) – San Diego County .......................................................... 101
Figure 25—Flood Hazard Areas ................................................................................................................................ 102
VOLUME 2 of 2—Map Atlas (separately bound)
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 10 of 190
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Carlsbad (City) Fire Department (Department) retained Citygate Associates, LLC
(Citygate) to conduct a Standards of Coverage (SOC) study and ambulance operations analysis to
provide an ongoing foundation for fire and ambulance services planning. The goal of this
assessment is to identify both current deployment performance and desired service levels and then
to assess the City’s ability to provide them. Citygate’s recommendations will improve Department
field deployment operations.
This report is presented in several parts, including this Executive Summary outlining the
challenges, findings, and recommendations, followed by the fire station/crew deployment analysis
supported by deployment coverage maps, incident response statistics, and a community risk
assessment. A separate Map Atlas (Volume 2) contains all the maps referenced throughout this
report. Overall, there are 19 findings and 6 recommendations.
POLICY CHOICES FRAMEWORK
There are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of fire service staffing,
response times, or outcomes. Thus, the level of fire protection services provided is a local policy
decision. Communities have the level of fire services they choose to “purchase” and can afford,
which may not always be the level desired. However, if services are provided at all, local, state,
and federal regulations relating to firefighter and citizen safety must be followed.
The fundamental policy choices are derived from two key questions:
What outcome is desired for an emergency? Is the desire to keep a building fire to
the room, building, or block of origin and to provide emergency medical care in
time to lessen the possibility of preventable death and severe disability?
Should equitable response time coverage be provided to all neighborhoods with
similar risks to protect? Once the outcomes are stated, the fire and emergency
medical services (EMS) first responder deployment must be designed to cover the
most geography in the fewest minutes to meet the stated outcome goals. In an urban
fire and EMS agency with multiple neighborhoods, such as the City, it must be
considered whether similarly developed areas should all receive the same response
time from a fire services unit.
OVERALL SUMMARY OF FIRE RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT
Citygate finds the Department is well organized to accomplish its mission to serve an urban
population in a coastal community land-use pattern. The Department is using best practices and is
data driven, as necessary.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 11 of 190
Simply summarized, fire service deployment is about the speed and weight of the response. Speed
refers to initial response (first-due) of all-risk intervention resources (engines, trucks, and/or rescue
ambulances) strategically deployed across a jurisdiction for response to emergencies within a
certain time to achieve desired outcomes. Weight refers to the multiple-unit Effective Response
Force (ERF), also commonly called a First Alarm, deployed for more serious emergencies, such
as building fires, multiple-patient medical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication
required, or technical rescue incidents. In these situations, a sufficient number of firefighters must
be assembled within a reasonable time to safely control the emergency and prevent it from
escalating into a more serious event.
If desired outcomes include limiting building fire damage to only part of the inside of an affected
building and/or minimizing permanent impairment resulting from a medical emergency, then
initial units should arrive within 7:30 minutes from 9-1-1 notification, and a multiple-unit ERF
should arrive within 11:30 minutes of 9-1-1 notification, all at 90 percent or better reliability. Total
response time to emergency incidents includes three distinct components: (1) 9-1-1 call
processing/dispatch time; (2) crew turnout time; and (3) travel time. Citygate’s recommendations
for these response components are 1:30 minutes, 2:00 minutes, and 4:00/8:00 minutes,
respectively, for first-due and multiple-unit ERF responses in the City.
OVERALL EVALUATION AND SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
The effective deployment of fire and EMS first responder units across the City are confronted by
two challenges: response times and ambulance capacity.
Challenge #1: Response Times
The City’s current fire station system provides the following first-due unit response times across
a variety of population density/risk areas for emergency medical and fire incident types. As the
following table shows, no station area receives service by 7:30 minutes, a best practice goal for an
urban area with mostly flat terrain and no hills or features such as freeways and lagoons bisecting
the community with limited crossings.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 12 of 190
Table 1—Call to Arrival Analysis – 2019
Station 2019
Department-wide 08:51
Station 1 08:21
Station 2 08:36
Station 3 08:51
Station 4 09:35
Station 5 08:56
Station 6 09:24
The North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority’s (North Comm’s) call processing
performance, at 1:08 minutes for 90 percent of the fire and EMS incidents, is better than a best
practice recommendation of 1:30 minutes. Department-wide crew turnout performance, at 1:59
minutes, is within a Citygate-recommended goal of 2:00 minutes to 90 percent of the fire/EMS
incidents.
As this report will describe in detail, the reason for the long total response time is fire unit travel
time, as shown in the following table.
Table 2—Travel – 90 Percent Performance – 2019
Station 2019
Department-wide 06:43
Station 1 06:22
Station 2 06:29
Station 3 06:40
Station 4 07:24
Station 5 06:50
Station 6 07:08
The travel time by a Department first responder unit has increased since 2013, as shown in the
following table.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 13 of 190
Table 3—Travel Time Decay From 2013 to 2019 – 90 Percent Performance
Year Department-wide Station CB1 Station CB2 Station CB3 Station CB4 Station CB5 Station CB6
2013 6:16 5:13 6:08 5:50 6:51 6:52 6:25
2019 6:43 6:22 6:29 6:40 7:24 6:50 7:08
The following graph shows the 90 percent travel time performance Department-wide by year and
by station from 2013–2019. A linear Department-wide forecast dashed line is also provided.
Figure 1—2013–2019 Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by Station With Linear
Department-Wide Forecast
The challenge in Carlsbad is cost-effectively providing 4:00- and 8:00-minute travel time coverage
due to a mostly non-grid road network design that traverses geography with hills, lagoons,
canyons, and open spaces, hampered further with limited crossings at freeways and rail lines.
The travel times will continue to decay in the City as total EMS incidents climb and traffic
congestion occurs at peak hours. As covered in this report, the problem is that, at approximately
38 square miles, a city of Carlsbad’s size cannot be covered with best practice response times from
only six fire stations due to road design and topography. Many cities of Carlsbad’s size, with better
grid style road networks on easier topography, would easily field eight to ten fire stations.
The EMS workload and travel time challenges have progressed over time, and in the case of EMS
incidents, exceeded projections made in early 2006. Carlsbad has increased resources as the City
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2030
2013–2019 Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by Station
With Linear Department-Wide Forecast
Department-Wide
Station CB1
Station CB2
Station CB3
Station CB4
Station CB5
Station CB6
Linear (Department-Wide)
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 14 of 190
evolved. Engines and ambulances were added at infrequent intervals, based on significant need. It
has been 31 years since adding a fire engine and 14 years since adding an ambulance, despite
significant EMS incident growth, as the following table shows.
Table 4—EMS Incident Growth and City Deployment Changes Since 1990
Year Event Population Number of EMS Incidents
EMS Incidents per 1,000 Resident Population
1990 Fire Station/Engine 6 opened in mid-1989 63,388 2,246 35/1,000
2006 Third ambulance was added full-time in 2006 92,753 5,040 54/1,000
2019 EMS workload analysis for Citygate SOC study 114,420 8,722* 76/1,000
Percentage Increase (1990 to 2019) 81% 288% 117%
*8,600 was projected for 2024 in 2006 analysis
The Department’s dispatch and turnout times meet best practices. There are no time savings to be
gained from these segments of total response time. Travel time cannot safely be improved by
driving faster. The only way to stabilize, much less improve, travel time is to increase deployment
from more fire and EMS first responder units, and ideally more stations located closer together.
Challenge #2: Ambulance Capacity
EMS incident growth in America over the last decade has been enormous as more and more un-
and under-insured use the 9-1-1 and emergency room system as their primary health care. The
effects of COVID-19 may temper this for a while, but until medical economics change to provide
insured care pathways for mild acuity events other than calling 9-1-1 for an emergency room visit,
there is not a likely downturn for EMS incident growth.
Carlsbad’s rescue ambulance workload is at or very near saturation. This is the City’s most
pressing need. Adding more rescue ambulances will at least stabilize response times and, when
one rescue ambulance is busy, the next-due rescue ambulance will be closer.
Given these issues and the high rescue ambulance unit workload, several improvements could be
gained by implementing the following changes (shown in priority order):
1. Add a fourth rescue ambulance while moving to a model consisting of one
paramedic/firefighter and one Emergency Medical Technician (EMT); also add a
seventh fire station south of Carlsbad Village along the coast.
2. Add a fourth and fifth rescue ambulance while moving to a model consisting of one
paramedic/firefighter and one EMT.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 15 of 190
3. In a later phase, after evaluating response times after the addition of rescue
ambulances and an added seventh station suggested in #1 and #2 above, consider
adding an eighth and ninth station in the southern City with either two-person Fast
Response Units or full three-person engine companies.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a list of all Citygate findings and recommendations contained in this report. These
are not listed in order of importance; they are listed in the order in which they appear in the body
of this report.
Findings
Finding #1: The City Council, by ordinance or resolution, has not adopted a complete and best
practices-based deployment measure or set of specialty response measures for all-
risk emergency responses that includes the beginning time measure from the point
of the regional North Comm fire dispatch center receiving the 9-1-1 phone call, nor
a goal statement tied to risks and outcome expectations. The deployment measure
should have a second measurement statement to define multiple-unit response
coverage for serious emergencies. Making these deployment goal changes will
meet the best practice recommendations of the Commission on Fire Accreditation
International.
Finding #2: The Department has a standard response plan that considers risk and establishes an
appropriate initial response for each incident type; each type of call for service
receives the combination of engines, trucks, rescue ambulances, specialty units, and
command officers customarily needed to effectively control that type of incident
based on Department experience.
Finding #3: The geographic mapping analysis indicates that the City’s six fire stations cannot
provide neighborhood-based first-due unit coverage at a best practice desired 4:00-
minute travel time.
Finding #4: Given the location of the City’s single aerial ladder truck at Fire Station 5, areas of
the City outside of the core do not receive an Effective Response Force (First
Alarm) within 8:00 minutes travel time.
Finding #5: The geographic mapping analysis indicates that the older northwest Carlsbad
Village area has more demand for service (both for EMS incidents and fires) but
does not receive multiple units when needed in less than 8:00 minutes travel time.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 16 of 190
Finding #6: The effect of traffic congestion at peak hours of the day is that first-due
neighborhood unit coverage is reduced to only 24 percent of the City’s public
streets at a 4:00-minute travel time measure. The Effective Response Force travel
time measure is reduced from 26 percent to only 7 percent.
Finding #7: The geographic mapping analysis indicates that, even without traffic congestion or
the impact of simultaneous incidents, the only way to close response time gaps is
with more response units in one to three more locations.
Finding #8: The Department’s service demand is consistent, indicating the need for a 24-hour-
per-day, seven-day-per-week fire and emergency medical services response
system.
Finding #9: The largest impact of simultaneous incidents is felt in Station 1’s area. This shifts
workload to engines further away in other station areas at peak hours of the day.
When Station 3 and/or 4 engines respond into the Carlsbad Village area, there is a
large under-covered area of the City north of Station 5.
Finding #10: The unit-hour utilization workload during the daytime on two of three rescue
ambulances is near or exceeding the recommended maximum of 30 percent, and
the third rescue ambulance is not far behind. This factor, combined with the
simultaneous incident rate in Station 1 (Carlsbad Village), is a significant problem
to providing adequate rescue ambulance response times in the northwest area of the
City.
Finding #11: Call processing performance, at 1:08 minutes for 90 percent of the fire and EMS
incidents, is better than a best practice recommendation of 1:30 minutes.
Finding #12: Department-wide crew turnout performance, at 1:59 minutes for 90 percent of the
fire and EMS incidents, is within a Citygate-recommended goal of 2:00 minutes.
Finding #13: First-due unit travel time, at 6:43 minutes for 90 percent of the fire and EMS
incidents, is 2:43 slower than a best practice urban area goal of 4:00 minutes. The
primary causes for this are the challenging road network and topography, the impact
of simultaneous incident responses, and the high rescue ambulance unit-hour
utilization workloads.
Finding #14: The Department’s call to arrival time, at 8:51 minutes for 90 percent of the fire and
EMS incidents, is 1:21 slower than Citygate’s recommended goal of 7:30 minutes.
The reason is due to longer travel times.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 17 of 190
Finding #15: The Effective Response Force (First Alarm) travel times, at 16:43 minutes for 90
percent of the fire and EMS incidents, is 5:13 minutes longer than the best practice
and Citygate-recommended goal of 8:00 minutes, and as with first-due units,
reflects Carlsbad’s challenging road network and topography.
Finding #16: The near term, best-fit response time improvements would be to add one additional
rescue ambulance, and add a seventh fire station, equipped with a relocated ladder
truck from Station 5, and staff an engine at Station 5.
Finding #17: If adding a seventh station will take several years, then the more immediate solution
to response times is to add two rescue ambulances at Stations 4 and 6.
Finding #18: Improving fire engine response times south of Palomar Airport Road and east of El
Camino would take a minimum of an eighth fire station with an engine or a two-
paramedic/firefighter Fast Response Unit. If a ninth station is desired, a similar
staffing option exists.
Finding #19: The most cost-effective method to deploy two rescue ambulances is to move
ambulance staffing to a model utilizing one paramedic/firefighter and one non-
sworn Emergency Medical Technician.
Recommendations
Based on the technical analysis and findings contained in this SOC assessment, Citygate offers the
following deployment recommendations:
Recommendation #1: Adopt Updated Deployment Policies: The City Council should adopt
updated, complete performance measures to aid deployment planning
and to monitor performance. The measures of time should be designed
to deliver outcomes that will save patients when possible and keep
small but serious fires from becoming more serious. With this is mind,
Citygate recommends the following measures:
1.1 Distribution of Fire Stations: To treat pre-hospital medical
emergencies and control small fires, the first-due unit should
arrive within 7:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time from the
receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North Comm. This equates to a 90-
second dispatch time, a 2:00-minute company turnout time, and
a 4:00-minute travel time.
1.2 Multiple-Unit Effective Response Force for Serious
Emergencies: To confine building fires near the room of origin,
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 18 of 190
keep vegetation fires under five acres in size, extricate trapped
victims within 30:00 minutes, and treat multiple medical patients
at a single incident, a multiple-unit Effective Response Force
should arrive within 11:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time from
the receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North Comm. This equates to a 90-
second dispatch time, 2:00-minute company turnout time, and
8:00-minute travel time.
1.3 Hazardous Materials Response: Provide hazardous materials
response designed to protect the City from the hazards associated
with uncontrolled release of hazardous and toxic materials. The
fundamental mission of the Department’s response is to isolate
the hazard, deny entry into the hazard zone, and notify
appropriate officials/resources to minimize impacts on the
community. This can be achieved with a first-due total response
time of 7:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time from the receipt of
the 9-1-1 call at North Comm, to provide initial hazard evaluation
and/or mitigation actions. After the initial evaluation is
completed, a determination can be made whether to request
additional resources from the regional hazardous materials team.
1.4 Technical Rescue: Respond to technical rescue emergencies as
efficiently and effectively as possible with enough trained
personnel to facilitate a successful rescue with a first-due total
response time of 7:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time from the
receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North Comm, to evaluate the situation
and/or initiate rescue actions. Following the initial evaluation,
assemble additional resources as needed within a total response
time of 11:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time from the receipt of
the 9-1-1 call at North Comm, to safely complete
rescue/extrication and delivery of the victim to the appropriate
emergency medical care facility.
Recommendation #2: The City and its firefighters should jointly consider modifying the
staffing of its rescue ambulances to one paramedic/firefighter and one
non-sworn Emergency Medical Technician.
Recommendation #3: The City should add a seventh fire station near the intersection of
Avenida Encinas and Cannon Road and a fourth rescue ambulance to
Station 4 using the modified ambulance staffing model.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 19 of 190
Recommendation #4: When a seventh fire station is opened, relocate the aerial ladder truck
to Station 7 and staff a standard fire engine at Station 5.
Recommendation #5: If adding the seventh fire station will take several years, improve rescue
ambulance deployment as soon as resources allow by adding a fourth
and fifth rescue ambulance to Stations 4 and 6 using the modified
ambulance staffing model.
Recommendation #6: Once Station 7 is operational, and the Department operates four or five
rescue ambulances, monitor response times and consider adding Fast
Response Units or engines at an eighth and possibly ninth fire station.
NEXT STEPS
The purpose of this assessment is to compare the City’s current performance against the local risks
to be protected and nationally recognized best practices. This analysis of performance forms the
basis from which to make recommendations for changes, if any, in fire station locations, equipment
types, and staffing. Recommendations take time and fiscal capacity, more so as the impacts of
COVID-19 continue to unfold on local and state economies. We suggest the following steps
moving forward.
◆ Review and absorb the content, findings, and recommendations of this report
◆ Consider adopting response performance goals at a future meeting, as
recommended in this report
◆ Conduct an ambulance rate review in 2020
◆ Ask staff to return with an implementation plan for this study’s operational and
Capital Improvement Budget recommendations with funding priorities over several
fiscal years.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 20 of 190
SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad (City) Fire Department (Department) retained Citygate Associates, LLC
(Citygate) to conduct a Standards of Coverage (SOC) study and ambulance operations analysis to
provide an ongoing foundation for fire and ambulance services planning. The goal of this
assessment is to identify both current deployment performance and desired service levels and then
to assess the City’s ability to provide them. Citygate’s recommendations will improve Department
field deployment operations. Citygate’s scope of work and corresponding Work Plan were
developed consistent with Citygate’s Project Team members’ experience in fire administration and
deployment. Citygate utilizes various National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Insurance
Services Office (ISO) publications as best practice guidelines, along with the self-assessment
criteria of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI).
1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into the following sections. Volume 2 (Map Atlas) is separately bound.
Executive Summary—Summarizes fire service policy choices and key deployment
findings and recommendations that can be used to strategically guide the
City’s and Department’s efforts going forward.
Section 1 Introduction and Background—Describes Citygate’s project approach,
methodology, and scope of work and provides an overview of the City and
Department.
Section 2 Standards of Coverage Assessment—Provides an overview of the SOC
process and detailed analysis for each of the eight SOC elements, including
existing deployment policies, outcome expectations, community risk,
critical tasks, distribution and concentration effectiveness, reliability and
historical response effectiveness, and overall deployment evaluation.
Appendix A Risk Assessment—Provides a comprehensive analysis of the fire and non-
fire hazards likely to impact the City.
1.1.1 Goals of the Report
This report cites findings and makes recommendations, as appropriate, related to each finding.
Findings and recommendations throughout this report are sequentially numbered. A complete list
of these findings and recommendations is provided in the Executive Summary.
This document provides technical information about how fire services are provided, legally
regulated, and how the Department currently operates. This information is presented in the form
of recommendations and policy choices for consideration by the Department and City.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 21 of 190
The result is a sound technical foundation upon which to understand the advantages and
disadvantages of the choices facing Department and City leadership regarding the best way to
provide fire services and, more specifically, at what level of desired outcome and expense.
1.1.2 Limitations of the Report
In the United States, there are no federal or state regulations requiring a specific minimum level
of fire services. Each community, through the public policy process, is expected to understand the
local fire and non-fire risks and its ability to pay for services, and then choose its level of fire
services. If fire services are provided at all, federal and state regulations specify how to safely
provide them for the public and for the personnel providing the services.
While this report and technical explanation can provide a framework for the discussion of
Department services, neither this report nor the Citygate team can make the final decisions nor
assess the cost of every alternative in detail. Once final strategic choices receive policy approval,
City staff can conduct final costing and fiscal analyses as typically completed in the City’s normal
operating and capital budget preparation cycle.
1.2 PROJECT APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WORK
1.2.1 Project Approach and Research Methods
Citygate utilized multiple sources to gather, understand, and model information about the City and
the Department. Citygate requested a large amount of background data and information to better
understand current costs, service levels, history of service level decisions, and other prior studies.
In subsequent site visits, Citygate performed focused interviews of the Department’s project team
members and other project stakeholders. Citygate reviewed demographic information about the
City and the potential for future growth and development. Citygate also obtained map and response
data from which to model current and projected fire service deployment with the goal of
identifying the location(s) of stations and crew quantities required to best serve the City and to
facilitate deployment planning.
Once Citygate understood the Department’s service area and its fire and non-fire risks, the Citygate
team developed a model of fire and rescue services that was tested against the travel time mapping
and prior response data to ensure an appropriate fit. Citygate also evaluated future City growth and
service demand by risk type and evaluated potential alternative emergency service delivery
models. The result is a framework for enhancing Department services while meeting reasonable
community expectations and fiscal realities.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 22 of 190
1.2.2 Project Scope of Work
Citygate’s approach to this SOC assessment involved:
◆ Reviewing information provided by the Department and City
◆ Utilizing FireView™, a geographic mapping program, to model fire station travel
time coverage
◆ Using StatsFD™, an incident response time analysis program, to review the
statistics of prior incident performance and plot the results on graphs and mapping
exhibits
◆ Reviewing projected City population and related development growth
◆ Projecting future service demand by risk type
◆ Identifying and evaluating potential alternate service delivery models
◆ Recommending appropriate risk-specific response performance goals
◆ Identifying a long-term strategy, including incremental short- and mid-term goals,
to achieve desired response performance objectives.
1.3 CITY OVERVIEW
Carlsbad is located in northern San Diego County. It is bordered primarily by Oceanside, Vista,
San Marcos, Encinitas, and the Pacific Ocean. The City’s Police Department is the primary Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for 9-1-1 calls in the community and transfers fire and medical
incidents to the North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority (North Comm) fire dispatch center.
The Fire Department serves a diverse urban population of approximately 114,420 residents plus
business employees, tourists, and the mobile populations on Interstate 5, Highway 78, and the
passenger railroad carriers. Resident population densities range from less than 500 to more than
5,000 people per square mile over a widely varied land use pattern. The City’s population is
projected to grow modestly over the next 15 years with an average annual growth rate of less than
one percent.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 23 of 190
Figure 2—Fire Stations and Resident Population Density
1.4 FIRE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Department operates out of six fire stations. All fire stations deliver fire suppression
capabilities and paramedic-level first responder services. The Department is also historically the
City’s ambulance provider and fields three paramedic rescue ambulances. The Department has a
daily constant (minimum/maximum) staffing of 25 firefighting personnel on duty operating five
fire engines (three firefighters each), one ladder truck (three firefighters each), three rescue
ambulances (two paramedic/firefighters each), seasonal lifeguard staffing with a minimum of one
Paramedic Lifeguard, and one Battalion Chief. In addition, the Department also cross-staffs (using
fire engine staff) specialty units for wildland and technical rescue responses.
All response personnel are trained to the paramedic level, capable of providing Advanced Life
Support (ALS) pre-hospital emergency medical care. Seasonal lifeguards are trained to a Basic
Life Support (BLS) level to render care in conjunction with paramedic personnel.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 24 of 190
Response personnel are also trained to the United States Department of Transportation Hazardous
Material First Responder Operations level to provide initial hazardous material incident
assessment, hazard isolation, and support for a hazardous materials response team.
All types of technical rescues for the Department are conducted by the on-duty staff trained in
confined space, trench, and low-angle rescue. On-duty units are also trained to the operational
level to assist the technicians.
1.4.1 Daily Staffing
The Department provides a constant daily staffing of 25 personnel from six fire stations, as shown
in the following table.
Table 5—Constant Daily Staffing
Minimum Per Unit Staff Type and Number Total Personnel
5 Engines 3 Firefighters 15
3 Rescue Ambulances 2 Paramedic/Firefighters 6
1 Ladder Truck 3 Firefighters 3
Battalion Chief 1 for Command 1
Total 24-Hour Personnel 25
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 25 of 190
This page was intentionally left blank
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 26 of 190
SECTION 2—STANDARDS OF COVERAGE ASSESSMENT
This section provides a detailed analysis of the Department’s current ability to deploy and mitigate
emergency risks within its service area. The response analysis uses prior response statistics and
geographic mapping to help the Department and the community visualize what the current
response system can and cannot deliver.
2.1 STANDARDS OF COVERAGE PROCESS OVERVIEW
The core methodology used by Citygate in the scope of its deployment analysis work is the
Standards of Cover, 5th and 6th editions, which is a systems-based approach to fire department
deployment published by the CFAI. This approach uses local risk and demographics to determine
the level of protection best fitting a community’s needs.
The SOC method evaluates deployment as part of a fire agency’s self-assessment process. This
approach uses risk and community expectations regarding outcomes to help elected officials make
informed decisions regarding fire and EMS deployment. Citygate has adopted this multiple-part
systems approach as a comprehensive tool to evaluate fire station locations. Depending on the
needs of the study, the depth of the components may vary.
Such a systems approach to deployment, rather than a one-size-fits-all prescriptive formula, allows
for local determination. In this comprehensive approach, each agency can match local needs (risks
and expectations) with the costs of various levels of service. In an informed public policy debate,
a governing board “purchases” the fire and emergency medical service levels the community needs
and can afford.
While working with multiple components to conduct a deployment analysis is admittedly more
work, it yields a much better result than using only a single component. For instance, if only travel
time is considered, and frequency of multiple calls is not, the analysis could miss over-worked
companies. If a risk assessment for deployment is not considered, and deployment is based only
on travel time, a community could under-deploy to incidents.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 27 of 190
The following table describes the eight elements of the SOC process.
Table 6—Standards of Coverage Process Elements
SOC Element Description
1 Existing Deployment Policies Reviewing the deployment goals the agency has in place today.
2 Community Outcome
Expectations
Reviewing the expectations of the community for response to
emergencies.
3 Community Risk Assessment Reviewing the assets at risk in the community. (For this report, see Appendix A—Risk Assessment.)
4 Critical Task Analysis Reviewing the tasks that must be performed and the personnel required to deliver the stated outcome expectation for the ERF.
5 Distribution Analysis Reviewing the spacing of first-due resources (typically engines) to control routine emergencies.
6 Concentration Analysis
Reviewing the spacing of fire stations so that more complex
emergencies can receive sufficient resources in a timely manner (First Alarm Assignment or the ERF).
7 Reliability and Historical Response Effectiveness Analysis
Using prior response statistics to determine the percent of compliance the existing system delivers.
8 Overall Evaluation Proposing Standards of Coverage statements by risk type, as necessary.
Source: CFAI Standards of Cover, 5th Edition
Simply summarized, fire service deployment is about the speed and weight of the response. Speed
refers to initial response (first-due) of all-risk intervention resources (engines, trucks, and/or rescue
ambulances) strategically deployed across a jurisdiction for response to emergencies within a
certain time to achieve desired outcomes. Weight refers to the multiple-unit Effective Response
Force (ERF), also commonly called a First Alarm, deployed for more serious emergencies, such
as building fires, multiple-patient medical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication
required, or technical rescue incidents. In these situations, a sufficient number of firefighters must
be assembled within a reasonable amount of time to safely control the emergency and prevent it
from escalating into a more serious event. The following table illustrates this deployment
paradigm.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 28 of 190
Table 7—Fire Service Deployment Paradigm
Element Description Purpose
Speed of
Response
Travel time of initial response of all-risk intervention units strategically located across a jurisdiction.
Controlling routine to moderate emergencies to prevent the incident from escalating in size or complexity.
Weight of
Response
Number of firefighters in a multiple-unit response for serious emergencies.
Assembling enough firefighters within a reasonable time frame to safely control a more complex emergency without escalation.
Thus, smaller fires and less complex emergencies require a single- or two-unit response (engine
and/or specialty resource) within a relatively short response time. Larger or more complex
incidents require more units and personnel to control. In either case, if the crews arrive too late or
the total number of personnel is too few for the emergency, they are drawn into an escalating and
more dangerous situation. The science of fire crew deployment is to spread crews out across a
community or jurisdiction for quick response to keep emergencies small with positive outcomes,
without spreading resources so far apart that they cannot assemble quickly enough to effectively
control more serious emergencies.
2.2 CURRENT DEPLOYMENT
Nationally recognized standards and best practices suggest
using several incremental measurements to define response
time. Ideally, the clock start time is when the 9-1-1
dispatcher receives the emergency call. In the City’s case,
when a 9-1-1 call is received by Carlsbad Police Department
dispatch, it is first screened to determine if fire or police
resources are required. If the nature of the call is related to fire, the call is transferred to North
Comm regional fire dispatch center. Currently, the response time clock starts when North Comm
first enters the incident in its computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. Response time increments
include North Comm call processing, crew alerting, response unit boarding (commonly called
turnout time), and actual driving (travel) time.
The Fire Department has set forth this response time goal when reporting performance in the
annual budget to the City Council:
All emergency responses are to receive a first unit on-scene in 6:00
minutes/seconds or less from the time of dispatch 90% of the time.
The Department’s response time goal does not include fire dispatch processing time, nor state the
type of emergency outcome or staffing needed to accomplish an outcome goal. In the annual
budget process, the Fire Department reports response times against the 6:00-minute goal.
SOC ELEMENT 1 OF 8
EXISTING DEPLOYMENT
POLICIES
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 29 of 190
However, there is no evidence that the City Council—by vote or other ordinance outside of
adopting the budget—has adopted the Fire Department’s response time measures. The
Department’s budget performance measure also calls for the second unit to be on-scene within
9:00 minutes from the time of fire dispatch 90 percent of the time.
The lack of more specific response time goals by type of risk is not congruent with best practices
for emergency response time tracking. Nationally recognized standards and best practices call for
a timeline with several important time measurements that include a definition of response time.
The City also has not identified response goals for wildfire, technical rescue, and hazardous
materials responses; in addition to firefighting and EMS, these incident types response time goals
also are required to meet the SOC model for the CFAI. In this SOC study, Citygate recommends
revised response time goals to include all risks including fire, EMS, hazardous materials, and
technical rescue responses. The goals will be consistent with the CFAI systems approach to
response.
NFPA 1710, the recommended deployment standard for career fire departments in urban/suburban
areas, currently recommends the initial (first-due) intervention unit arrive within a 4:00-minute
travel time and recommends arrival of all resources comprising the multiple-unit First Alarm
within an 8:00-minute travel time at 90 percent or better reliability.1
The most recent published best practices by the NFPA for dispatching have increased the dispatch
processing time to 90 seconds and, if there are language barriers, to 120 seconds. Further, for crew
turnout time, 60 to 80 seconds is recommended depending on the type of protective clothing that
must be donned. However, based on Citygate’s SOC experience with hundreds of agencies, 2:00
minutes is a more realistic goal for crew turnout time.
If the travel time measures recommended by the NFPA (and Citygate) are added to dispatch
processing and crew turnout times recommended by Citygate and best practices, then a realistic,
90 percent, first-due arrival goal is 7:30 minutes from the time of North Comm receiving the 9-1-1
call transfer from the Carlsbad Police Department. This is comprised of 90 seconds for dispatch,
2:00 minutes for crew turnout, and 4:00 minutes for travel.
1 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 (2016 Edition).
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 30 of 190
Finding #1: The City Council, by ordinance or resolution, has not adopted a
complete and best practices-based deployment measure or set of
specialty response measures for all-risk emergency responses that
includes the beginning time measure from the point of the regional
North Comm fire dispatch center receiving the 9-1-1 phone call, nor
a goal statement tied to risks and outcome expectations. The
deployment measure should have a second measurement statement
to define multiple-unit response coverage for serious emergencies.
Making these deployment goal changes will meet the best practice
recommendations of the Commission on Fire Accreditation
International.
2.2.1 Current Deployment Model
Resources and Staffing
The Department has a daily constant (minimum/maximum) staffing of 25 firefighting personnel
on duty operating five fire engines (three firefighters each), one ladder truck (three firefighters
each), three rescue ambulances (two paramedic/firefighters each), and one Battalion Chief. In
addition, the Department also cross-staffs (using fire engine staff) specialty units for wildland and
technical rescue responses. This deployment model meets the minimum staffing standards for
building fires as recommended by NFPA 1710 and provides sufficient personnel for an ERF (First
Alarm) to serious fire incidents. The Department has mutual aid agreements with other fire
agencies in San Diego County and is also a signatory to the State of California and County mutual
aid agreements.
Lifeguard Services
The Department has a Lifeguard Program that covers roughly a ¾-mile stretch of beach on the
northern border of the City, commonly referred to as “North Beach.” Lifeguard staffing is based
on seasonal demand and beach conditions with the minimum being one Paramedic Lifeguard
Lieutenant or Paramedic Lifeguard Supervisor on duty daily. The three staffing models are
summertime, offseason shoulder, and offseason winter.
Daily staffing during the summertime, which typically lasts from Memorial Day weekend through
Labor Day weekend, consists of at least five lifeguards, and as many as seven on duty. Regular
staffing consists of a Lifeguard Supervisor or Paramedic Lifeguard Lieutenant, three tower
seasonal lifeguards, and a lifeguard in a Fire Department utility task vehicle. Additionally, during
periods of expected heavy beach attendance or large surf, another seasonal lifeguard may be
patrolling in the water on a rescue personal watercraft. Also, on an as-needed basis, seasonal
lifeguards will staff one position on the joint police/fire boat in the Agua Hedionda lagoon. The
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 31 of 190
Carlsbad Police Department staffs the other position to provide a joint water safety and
enforcement detail.
Staffing during the shoulder offseason, which first runs from the spring break period in mid-March
to Memorial Day and then runs from Labor Day through October, consists of a Lifeguard
Supervisor or Paramedic Lifeguard Lieutenant and at least one, though typically more, seasonal
lifeguard(s). Staffing patterns during the shoulder season vary due to the changing weather patterns
and the varying numbers of beach attendance going into and coming out of winter.
Staffing during the winter offseason consists of a Paramedic Lifeguard Lieutenant or a Lifeguard
Supervisor. Staffing may occasionally increase due to warm weather on the weekends and/or larger
surf.
With the two Lifeguard Supervisors and Battalion Chief overseeing the Lifeguard Program having
take-home vehicles, the program has 24-hour response capability for after-hours incidents.
Response Plan
The Department is an all-risk fire agency providing the people it protects with services that include
fire suppression; pre-hospital paramedic (ALS) transport EMS; hazardous material and technical
rescue response; and other non-emergency services including fire prevention, community safety
preparedness education, and other related services.
Given these risks, the Department utilizes a tiered response plan calling for different types and
numbers of resources depending on incident/risk type. North Comm selects and dispatches the
closest and most appropriate Department resource types pursuant to the Department’s response
plan, as shown in the following table.
Table 8—Response Plan by Incident Type
Risk Type Minimum Type of Resources Sent Total Firefighters Sent
1-Patient EMS 1 Engine or 1 Truck, 1 Rescue Ambulance (ALS) 5
Auto Fire 1 Engine 3
Building Fire 3 Engines, 1 Truck, 1 Rescue Ambulance (ALS), 1 Battalion Chief 15
Wildland Fire 3 Wildland Units, 1 Structure Fire Engine, 1 Water Tender,
1 Battalion Chief 15
Technical Rescue 3 Engines, 1 Truck, 1 Rescue Ambulance (ALS), 1 Urban Search and Rescue, 1 Battalion Chief 18
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 32 of 190
Finding #2: The Department has a standard response plan that considers risk and
establishes an appropriate initial response for each incident type;
each type of call for service receives the combination of engines,
trucks, rescue ambulances, specialty units, and command officers
customarily needed to effectively control that type of incident based
on Department experience.
2.3 OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS
The SOC process begins by reviewing existing emergency
services outcome expectations. This includes determining
the purpose of the response system and whether the
governing body has adopted any response performance
measures. If it has, the time measures used must be
understood and reliable data must be available.
Current national best practice is to measure percent completion of a goal (e.g., 90 percent of
responses) instead of an average measure. Mathematically, this is called a fractile measure.2 This
is because measuring the average only identifies the central or middle point of response time
performance for all calls for service in the data set. Using an average makes it impossible to know
how many incidents had response times that were far above or just above the average.
For example, Figure 3 shows response times for a fictitious fire department. This agency is small
and receives 20 calls for service each month. Each response time has been plotted on the graph
from shortest to longest response time.
Figure 3 shows that the average response time is 8.7 minutes. However, the average response time
fails to properly account for four calls for service with response times far greater than a threshold
in which positive outcomes could be expected. In fact, it is evident in Figure 3 that 20 percent of
responses are far too slow and that this jurisdiction has a potential life-threatening service delivery
problem. Average response time as a measurement tool for fire services is simply not sufficient.
This is a significant issue in larger cities if hundreds or thousands of calls are answered far beyond
the average.
By using the fractile measurement with 90 percent of responses in mind, this small jurisdiction has
a response time of 18:00 minutes, 90 percent of the time. This fractile measurement is far more
accurate at reflecting the service delivery situation of this small agency.
2 A fractile is that point below which a stated fraction of the values lie. The fraction is often given in percent; the term percentile may then be used.
SOC ELEMENT 2 OF 8
COMMUNITY OUTCOME
EXPECTATIONS
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 33 of 190
Figure 3—Fractile versus Average Response Time Measurements
More importantly, within the SOC process, positive outcomes are the goal. From that, crew size
and response time can be calculated to allow appropriate fire station spacing (distribution and
concentration). Emergency medical incidents include situations with the most severe time
constraints. The brain can only survive 4:00 to 6:00 minutes without oxygen. Cardiac arrest,
drowning, choking, trauma constrictions, or other similar events can cause oxygen deprivation to
the brain. In a building fire, a small incipient fire can grow to involve the entire room in a 6:00- to
8:00-minute time frame. If fire service response is to achieve positive outcomes in severe
emergency medical situations and incipient fire situations, all responding crews must arrive, assess
the situation, and deploy effective measures before brain death occurs or the fire spreads beyond
the room of origin.
Thus, from the time of 9-1-1 receiving the call, an effective deployment system is beginning to
manage the problem within a 7:00- to 8:00-minute total response time. This is right at the point
that brain death is becoming irreversible and the fire has grown to the point of leaving the room of
origin and becoming very serious. Thus, the City needs a first-due response goal that is within a
range to give hope for a positive outcome. It is important to note that the fire or medical emergency
continues to deteriorate from the time of inception, not from the time the fire engine starts to drive
the response route. Ideally, the emergency is noticed immediately and the 9-1-1 system is activated
promptly. This step of awareness—calling 9-1-1 and giving the dispatcher accurate information—
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 34 of 190
takes, in the best of circumstances, 1:30 minutes. Crew notification and travel time take up to an
additional 2:00 minutes. After the unit travels across the road network, upon arrival, the crew must
approach the patient or emergency, assess the situation, and appropriately deploy its skills and
tools. Even in easy-to-access situations, this step can take 2:00 minutes or more. This time frame
may be increased considerably due to long driveways, apartment buildings with limited access,
multiple-story apartments or office complexes, or shopping center buildings.
Unfortunately, there are times when the emergency has become too severe, even before the 9-1-1
notification and/or fire department response, for the responding crew to reverse; however, when
an appropriate response time policy is combined with a well-designed deployment system, then
only anomalies like bad weather, poor traffic conditions, or multiple emergencies slow down the
response system. Consequently, a properly designed system will give citizens the hope of a
positive outcome for their tax dollar expenditure.
For this report, total response time is the sum of the North Comm call processing, fire crew turnout,
and road travel time steps. This is consistent with CFAI best practice recommendations. The 9-1-1
call transfer from the Carlsbad Police Department to North Comm should be monitored and
reported regularly to the Carlsbad Fire Department. Calls to 9-1-1 should be answered within 15
seconds, 95 percent of the time. The call should then be transferred and picked up by North Comm
within 30, seconds 90 percent of the time.
2.4 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
The third element of the SOC process is a community risk
assessment. Within the context of an SOC study, the
objectives of a community risk assessment are to:
◆ Identify the values at risk to be protected
within the community or service area.
◆ Identify the specific hazards with the potential to adversely impact the community
or service area.
◆ Quantify the overall risk associated with each hazard.
◆ Establish a foundation for current/future deployment decisions and risk-reduction /
hazard mitigation planning and evaluation.
A hazard is broadly defined as a situation or condition that can cause or contribute to harm.
Examples include fires, medical emergencies, vehicle collisions, earthquakes, and floods. Risk is
broadly defined as the probability of hazard occurrence in combination with the likely severity of
resultant impacts to people, property, and the community as a whole.
SOC ELEMENT 3 OF 8
COMMUNITY RISK
ASSESSMENT
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 35 of 190
2.4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology
The methodology employed by Citygate to assess community risks as an integral element of an
SOC study incorporates the following elements:
◆ Identification of geographic planning sub-zones (risk zones) appropriate to the
community or jurisdiction.
◆ Identification and quantification (to the extent data is available) of the specific
values at risk to various hazards within the community or service area.
◆ Identification of the fire and non-fire hazards to be evaluated.
◆ Determination of the probability of occurrence for each hazard.
◆ Identification and evaluation of multiple, relevant impact severity factors for each
hazard by planning zone using agency/jurisdiction-specific data and information.
◆ Quantification of overall risk for each hazard based on probability of occurrence in
combination with probable impact severity as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4—Overall Risk
2.4.2 Values at Risk to Be Protected
Broadly defined, values at risk are those tangibles of significant importance or value to the
community or jurisdiction that are potentially at risk of harm or damage from a hazard occurrence.
Probability Impact Severity
Overall Risk
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 36 of 190
Values at risk typically include people, critical facilities/infrastructure, buildings, and key
economic, cultural, historic, and/or natural resources.
People
Residents, employees, visitors, and travelers through a community or jurisdiction are vulnerable
to harm from a hazard occurrence. Particularly vulnerable are specific at-risk populations,
including those unable to care for themselves or self-evacuate in the event of an emergency. At-
risk populations typically include children less than ten years of age, the elderly, and people housed
in institutional settings. Key demographic data for the City includes the following:3
◆ More than 29 percent of the City population is under 10 years or over 65 years of
age
◆ The City’s population is predominantly Caucasian (80 percent), followed by
Hispanic/Latino (15 percent and also counted as Caucasian), other ethnicities (10
percent), Asian (9 percent), and Black / African American (1 percent)
◆ Of the population over 24 years of age, 96 percent has completed high school or an
equivalent education
◆ Of the population over 24 years of age, nearly 60 percent has an undergraduate,
graduate, or professional degree
◆ Of the population 15 years of age or older, 96 percent is in the workforce and 4
percent is unemployed
◆ Per capita income is nearly $60,000
◆ The population below the federal poverty level is 9.5 percent
◆ Slightly less than 6 percent of the population does not have health insurance
coverage.
In addition, the City’s population is projected to increase modestly by 13.5 percent over the next
15 years to nearly 130,000, for an average annualized increase of less than one percent.4
Critical Infrastructure / Key Resources
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines Critical Infrastructure / Key Resources as
those physical assets essential to the public health and safety, economic vitality, and resilience of
a community, such as lifeline utilities infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure, essential
government services facilities, public safety facilities, schools, hospitals, and airports. A hazard
3 U.S. Census Bureau (2017). 4 Source: City of Carlsbad General Plan, Table 2-8
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 37 of 190
occurrence with significant impact severity affecting one or more of these facilities would likely
adversely impact critical public or community services.
Buildings
The City has more than 47,276 housing units and more than 7,1005 business occupancies to protect,
including manufacturing, research, technology, office, professional services, retail sales,
restaurants/bars, motels, churches, schools, government facilities, healthcare facilities, and other
non-residential uses as described in Appendix A.
2.4.3 Hazard Identification
Citygate utilized prior risk studies where available, fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the
CFAI, and data and information specific to the agency/jurisdiction to identify the hazards to be
evaluated for this report.
Following an evaluation of the fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the CFAI as they relate to
services provided by the Department, Citygate evaluated the following six hazards for this risk
assessment:
1. Building fire
2. Vegetation/wildland fire
3. Medical emergency
4. Hazardous material release
5. Technical rescue
6. Earthquake
Because building fires and medical emergencies have the most severe time constraints if positive
outcomes are to be achieved, the following is a brief overview of building fire and medical
emergency risk. Appendix A contains the full risk assessment for all six hazards.
Building Fire Risk
One of the primary hazards in any community is building fire. Building fire risk factors include
building density, size, age, occupancy, and construction materials and methods, as well as the
number of stories, the required fire flow, the proximity to other buildings, built-in fire
protection/alarm systems, an available fire suppression water supply, building fire service
5 Source: ESRI Business Summary for the City of Carlsbad (2019 data)
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 38 of 190
capacity, fire suppression resource deployment (distribution/concentration), staffing, and response
time.
Figure 5 illustrates the building fire progression timeline and shows that flashover, which is the
point at which the entire room erupts into fire after all the combustible objects in that room reach
their ignition temperature, can occur as early as 3:00 to 5:00 minutes from the initial ignition.
Human survival in a room after flashover is extremely improbable.
Figure 5—Building Fire Progression Timeline
Source: http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org
Medical Emergency Risk
Fire agency service demand in most jurisdictions is predominantly for medical emergencies.
Figure 6 illustrates the reduced survivability of a cardiac arrest victim as time to defibrillation
increases.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 39 of 190
Figure 6—Survival Rate versus Time to Defibrillation
Source: www.suddencardiacarrest.org
The Department currently provides ALS pre-hospital transport emergency medical services, with
operational personnel trained to the EMT or EMT-Paramedic level.
2.4.4 Risk Assessment Summary
The City’s overall risk for the six hazards related to emergency services presented in this report
range from Low to High, as summarized in the following table. See Appendix A for the full risk
assessment.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 40 of 190
Table 9—Overall Risk by Hazard
Hazard Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
1 Building Fire Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low
2 Vegetation/Wildland Fire Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate
3 Medical Emergency High High High High High High
4 Hazardous Materials Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low
5 Technical Rescue Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low
6 Earthquake Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
2.5 CRITICAL TASK TIME MEASURES—WHAT MUST BE DONE OVER WHAT TIME FRAME TO
ACHIEVE THE STATED OUTCOME EXPECTATION?
SOC studies use critical task information to determine the
number of firefighters needed within a time frame to
achieve desired objectives on fire and emergency medical
incidents. Table 10 and Table 11 illustrate critical tasks
typical of building fire and medical emergency incidents,
including the minimum number of personnel required to complete each task. These tables are
composites from Citygate clients in urban/suburban departments similar to the City, with units
staffed with three personnel per engine or ladder truck. It is important to understand the following
relative to these tables:
◆ It can take a considerable amount of time after a task is ordered by command to
complete the task and arrive at the desired outcome.
◆ Task completion time is usually a function of the number of personnel that are
simultaneously available. The fewer firefighters available, the longer some tasks
will take to complete. Conversely, with more firefighters available some tasks are
completed concurrently.
◆ Many tasks must be conducted by a minimum of two firefighters to comply with
safety regulations. For example, two firefighters are required to search for a victim
in a smoke-filled room.
2.5.1 Critical Firefighting Tasks
Table 10 illustrates the critical tasks required to control a typical single-family dwelling fire with
five response units (three engines, one ladder truck, one rescue ambulance, one Chief Officer)
SOC ELEMENT 4 OF 8
CRITICAL TASK TIME
STUDY
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 41 of 190
from the City, for a total ERF of 15 personnel. These tasks are taken from typical fire departments’
operational procedures, which are consistent with the customary findings of other agencies using
the SOC process. No conditions exist to override the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) two-in/two-out safety policy, which requires that firefighters enter
atmospheres that are immediately dangerous to life and health, such as building fires, in teams of
two while two more firefighters are outside, immediately ready to rescue them should trouble arise.
Scenario: Simulated approximately 2,000-square-foot, two-story, residential single-family house
fire with unknown rescue situation. Responding companies receive dispatch information typical
for a witnessed fire. Upon arrival, they find approximately 50 percent of the second floor involved
in fire.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 42 of 190
Table 10—First Alarm Residential Fire Critical Tasks – 15 Personnel
Critical Task Description Personnel Required
First-Due Engine (3 personnel)
1 Conditions report. 1
2 Establish supply line to hydrant. 2
3 Deploy initial fire attack line to point of building access. 1–2
4 Operate pump and charge attack line. 1
5 Establish incident command. 1
6 Conduct primary search if conditions dictate. 2
Second-Due Engine (3 personnel)
1 If necessary, establish supply line to hydrant. 1–2
2 Deploy a backup attack line. 1–2
3 Establish Initial Rapid Intervention Crew for OSHA 2-in/2-out. 2
First-Due Truck (3 personnel)
1 Deploy ground ladders to roof. 1–2
2 Establish horizontal or vertical building ventilation. 1–2
3 Open concealed spaces as required. 2
Chief Officer
1 Transfer of incident command. 1
2 Establish exterior command and scene safety. 1
Third-Due Engine (3 personnel)
1 Conduct primary search. 3
Paramedic/Firefighter Rescue Ambulance (2 personnel)
1 Complete the Rapid Intervention Crew. 2
2 Secure utilities. 1–2
3 Deploy additional attack line(s) as needed. 2
4 Conduct secondary search. 2
Grouped together, the duties in the previous table form an ERF (First Alarm Assignment). These
distinct tasks must be performed to effectively achieve the desired outcome; arriving on scene does
not stop the emergency from escalating. While firefighters accomplish these tasks, the incident
progression clock keeps running.
Fire in a building can double in size during its free-burn period before fire suppression is initiated.
Many studies have shown that a small fire can spread to engulf an entire room in less than 4:00 to
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 43 of 190
5:00 minutes after free burning has started. Once the room is completely superheated and involved
in fire (known as flashover), the fire will spread quickly throughout the structure and into the attic
and walls. For this reason, it is imperative that fire suppression and search/rescue operations
commence before the flashover point occurs if the outcome goal is to keep the fire damage in or
near the room of origin. In addition, flashover presents a life-threatening situation to both
firefighters and any occupants of the building.
2.5.2 Critical Medical Emergency Tasks
The Department responded to 8,722 EMS incidents in 2019 including cardiac arrests, vehicle
accidents, strokes, heart attacks, difficulty breathing, falls, childbirths, and other medical
emergencies.
For comparison, the following table summarizes the critical tasks required for a cardiac arrest
patient. Many of these tasks require paramedic intervention and, for that reason, the Department
strives to maintain two paramedics per company per day.
Table 11—Cardiac Arrest Critical Tasks – 5 Personnel – Engine (3 Personnel) and Rescue
Ambulance (2 Personnel)
Critical Task Personnel Required Critical Task Description
1 Chest compressions 1–2 Compression of chest to circulate blood
2 Ventilate/oxygenate 1–2 Bag-valve-mask, apply O2
3 Airway control 1–2 Manual techniques/intubation/cricothyroidotomy
4 Defibrillate 1–2 Electrical defibrillation of dysrhythmia
5 Establish I.V. 1–2 Peripheral or central intravenous access
6 Interpret ECG 2 Identify type and treat dysrhythmia
7 Administer drugs 2 Administer appropriate pharmacological agents
8 Patient charting 1–2 Record vitals, treatments administered, etc.
9 Hospital communication 1–2 Receive treatment orders from physician
10 Treat en route to hospital 2–3 Continue to treat/monitor/transport patient
2.5.3 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force Size
The time required to complete the critical tasks necessary to stop the escalation of an emergency
must be compared to outcomes. As shown in nationally published fire service time versus
temperature tables, after approximately 4:00 to 5:00 minutes of free burning in a room, fire will
escalate to the point of flashover. At this point, the entire room is engulfed in fire, the entire
building becomes threatened, and human survival near or in the room of fire origin becomes
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 44 of 190
impossible. Additionally, brain death begins to occur within 4:00 to 6:00 minutes of the heart
stopping. Thus, the ERF must arrive in time to prevent these emergency events from becoming
worse.
The Department’s daily staffing is sufficient to deliver one ERF of 15 personnel (a minimum of
three engines, one ladder truck, one rescue ambulance, and one Battalion Chief) to a building fire,
if they can arrive in time, which the statistical analysis of this report will discuss in depth.
Mitigating an emergency event is a team effort once the units have arrived. This refers to the weight
of response; if too few personnel arrive too slowly, the emergency will escalate instead of improve.
The outcome times, of course, will be longer and yield less-desirable results if the arriving force
does not arrive in time or does not consist of a full ERF.
The quantity of staffing and the arrival time frame can be critical in a serious fire. Fires in older
and/or multiple-story buildings could well require the initial firefighters needing to rescue trapped
or immobile occupants. If the ERF is too small, rescue and firefighting operations cannot be
conducted simultaneously.
Fires and complex medical incidents require that additional units arrive in time to complete an
effective intervention. Time is one factor that comes from proper station placement. Good
performance also comes from adequate staffing and training. When fire stations are spaced too far
apart and one unit must cover another unit’s area, or multiple units are needed, these other units
can be too far away, and the emergency will escalate and/or result in less than desirable outcome.
Previous critical task studies conducted by Citygate, the NFPA and NIST6 find that all units need
to arrive with 15+ firefighters within 11:30 minutes (from the time of 9-1-1 call) at a building fire
to be able to simultaneously and effectively perform the tasks of rescue, fire suppression, and
ventilation.
If fewer firefighters arrive, most likely the search team would be delayed, as would ventilation.
The attack lines would only consist of two firefighters, which does not allow for rapid movement
of the hose line above the first floor in a multiple-story building. Rescue is conducted with at least
two-person teams; thus, when rescue is essential, other tasks are not completed in a simultaneous,
timely manner. Effective deployment is about the speed (travel time) and the weight (number of
firefighters) of the response.
Fifteen initial personnel could handle a moderate risk, confined residential fire; however, even an
ERF of 15 personnel will be seriously slowed if the fire is above the first floor in a low-rise
6 Report on Residential Fireground Field Experiments, National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note
#1661, April 2010.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 45 of 190
apartment building or commercial/industrial building. This is where the capability to add
additional personnel and resources to the standard response becomes critical.
Given that the Department’s ERF plan delivers 15 personnel to a moderate-risk single family home
fire, it reflects a goal to confine serious building fires to or near the room of origin and to prevent
the spread of fire to adjoining buildings. This is a typical desired outcome in urban/suburban areas
and requires more firefighters more quickly than the typical rural outcome of keeping the fire
contained to the building, rather than room, of origin.
The Department’s current physical response to building fires is, in effect, its de-facto deployment
measure to more densely populated urban areas, if those areas are within a reasonable travel time
from a fire station. Thus, this becomes the baseline policy for the deployment of firefighters.
2.6 DISTRIBUTION AND CONCENTRATION STUDIES—HOW THE LOCATION OF FIRST-DUE AND
FIRST ALARM RESOURCES AFFECTS EMERGENCY INCIDENT OUTCOMES
The City is served today by six fire stations deploying five
engine companies, one ladder truck, three rescue
ambulances, and one Battalion Chief as the duty Incident
Commander and Safety Officer. It is appropriate to
understand, using geographic mapping tools, what the
existing stations do and do not cover within travel time
goals, if there are any coverage gaps needing one or more
stations, and what, if anything, to do about them.
In brief, there are two geographic perspectives to fire
station deployment:
◆ Distribution – the spacing of first-due fire units to control routine emergencies
before they escalate and require additional resources.
◆ Concentration – the spacing of fire stations sufficiently close to each other so that
more complex emergency incidents can quickly receive sufficient resources from
multiple fire stations. As indicated, this is known as the Effective Response Force
or, more commonly, the First Alarm Assignment—the collection of a sufficient
number of firefighters on scene, delivered within the concentration time goal to
stop the escalation of the problem.
To analyze first-due fire unit travel time coverage, Citygate used FireViewTM, a geographic
mapping tool that can measure theoretical travel time over a street network. For this calculation,
Citygate used the base map and street travel speeds calibrated to actual fire apparatus travel times
from previous responses to simulate real-world travel time coverage. A second model was built
that uses traffic congestion data to slow the fire unit responses at peak traffic periods. Using these
SOC ELEMENT 5 OF 8
DISTRIBUTION STUDY
SOC ELEMENT 6 OF 8
CONCENTRATION
STUDY
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 46 of 190
tools, Citygate ran several deployment tests and measured their impact on various parts of the City.
A 4:00-minute first-due and 8:00-minute ERF travel time were used consistent with best practice
response performance goals for positive outcomes in urban areas.
2.6.1 Deployment Baselines
All maps referenced can be found in Volume 2 (Map Atlas).
Map #1 – General Geography, Station Locations, and Response Resource Types
Map #1 shows the City boundary and fire station locations. This is a reference map for other maps
that follow. Station symbols denote the type of staffed fire apparatus at each station. All City
engines and the ladder truck are staffed with a minimum of three personnel daily. Rescue
ambulances are staffed with two paramedic/firefighters each. This map also shows the six risk
planning zones, as recommended by the CFAI, used for this study, which are the same as each
station’s initial (first-due) response area.
Map #2 – Risk Assessment: Population Density
Map #2 shows the population density across the City for resident population. People drive EMS
incident demand, and the highest population density areas are typically the locations with the
highest EMS demand. It is therefore reasonable to expect any significant increases in residential,
commercial, or tourism density will result, to some degree, in an increase in EMS call volume.
Map #3a – Distribution: 4:00-Minute First-Due Travel Time Coverage – One Engine
Map #3a shows the areas within a 4:00-minute travel time of one of the City’s six fire stations.
Green road segments indicate the City’s current road network that a fire engine should be expected
to reach within 4:00 minutes, assuming it is in station and encounters no traffic congestion. The
modeling tool uses actual fire apparatus speed by roadway type.
The orange street segments represent the reduced travel time coverage at peak morning and
evening traffic congestion hours. As can be seen, traffic congestion can hamper fire unit travel
time, even with traffic signal preemption technology. The impact is the largest in the more
travelled, major road and commercial corridors.
The purpose of response time modeling is to determine response time coverage across a
jurisdiction’s geography and station locations. This geographic mapping design is then validated
against dispatch time data to reflect actual response times. There should be some overlap between
station areas so that a second-due unit can have a chance of an acceptable response time when it
responds to a call in a different station’s first-due response area. As can be seen, coverage only
exists in the vicinity of each fire station. The coverage gap areas exist due to the street design and
topography.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 47 of 190
As detailed later in this section, the Department-wide travel time to 90 percent of fire and EMS
incidents is 6:43 minutes for 2019. This supports the geographic mapping model that shows 4:00-
minute coverage does not extend out into all of the City’s neighborhood areas.
Map #3b – Distribution: 8:00-Minute First-Due Travel Time Coverage – One Rescue
Ambulance
This map shows the coverage of one rescue ambulance at 8:00 minutes travel. EMS systems that
deliver a paramedic on each engine crew typically expect the ambulance with another paramedic
to arrive in 8:00 minutes travel. The rescue ambulance coverage without traffic congestion is
nearly complete to the City limits. Under traffic congestion, the western edges of Station 4 and 2’s
areas are not covered by the eighth minute of rescue ambulance travel.
Map #4 – Insurance Services Office 1.5-Mile Coverage Areas
Map #4 displays the Insurance Services Office (ISO) recommendation that urban stations cover a
1.5-mile distance response area. Depending on a jurisdiction’s road network, the 1.5-mile measure
usually equates to a 3:30- to 4:00-minute travel time. However, a 1.5-mile measure is a reasonable
indicator of station spacing and overlap. As can be seen, the 1.5-mile ISO coverage is smaller than
the 4:00-minute first-due coverage in Map #3a.
Map #5 – Concentration: Effective Response Force 8:00-Minute Travel Time Coverage
Map #5 shows, in green, the streets where the Department’s current response plan should deliver
the initial ERF of three engines, one ladder truck, one rescue ambulance, and one Battalion Chief
within 8:00 minutes travel time. The ERF coverage is very limited to the core area of the City and,
during periods of traffic congestion, to principally the main road arterials in the City’s core.
Map #6 – 8:00-Minute Ladder Truck Travel Time Coverage
Map #6 shows 8:00-minute travel time coverage for the one ladder truck with and without traffic
congestion. As can be seen, one ladder truck from Station 5, even without traffic congestion,
cannot reach the northwest Carlsbad Village area, western Poinsettia areas, and southeast La Costa
areas. During traffic congestion, a single ladder truck cannot reach the peripheral areas in 8:00
minutes or less.
Map #7 – Battalion Chief 8:00-Minute Travel Time Coverage
Map #7 displays 8:00-minute travel time coverage for the one Battalion Chief from Station 5. The
Battalion Chief unit’s limited travel time coverage is identical to the ladder truck coverage. While
being near the center of the City, Station 5 cannot reach most outer City areas in 8:00 minutes
travel.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 48 of 190
Map #8 – All Incident Locations
Map #8 shows the location of all incidents for four years from 2016 through 2019. It is apparent
that demand for responses occur in all areas of the City. Given the automatic aid agreement
between the northwest County cities, the closest unit to an incident in that area is dispatched by
North Comm. Thus, the map also shows over the four years where Carlsbad sent at least one unit
outside the City.
Map #9 – Emergency Medical Services and Rescue Incident Locations
Map #9 illustrates only the emergency medical and rescue incident locations. With the majority of
the calls for service being medical emergencies, virtually all areas of the City need pre-hospital
emergency medical services.
Map #10 – All Fire Locations
Map #10 identifies the location of all fires within the City over the past four years. All fires include
any type of fire call, from vehicle to dumpster to building. There are obviously fewer fires than
medical or rescue calls. Even given this fact, it is evident that fires occur in all fire station areas,
but also more frequently in the northwest area of the City.
Map #11 – Structure Fire Locations
Map #11 displays the location of the structure fire incidents over the past four years. While the
number of structure fires is a smaller subset of total fires, there are two meaningful findings from
this map. First, there are structure fires in every fire station area. Second, there are a relatively
small number of building fires in the City overall. In Citygate’s experience, this is consistent with
other similar cities in the western United States.
As with the previous map of all fire types, there are more building fires in the older, northwest area
of the City. This area does not receive a minimum ERF of three engines, one ladder truck, one
rescue ambulance, and one Battalion Chief in less than 8:00 minutes of travel time.
Map #12 – Emergency Medical Services and Rescue Incident Location Densities
Map #12 shows, by mathematical density, where clusters of EMS incident activity occurred. In
this set, the darker density color plots the highest concentration of EMS and rescue incidents. This
type of map makes the location of frequent workload more meaningful than simply mapping the
locations of all EMS incidents, as shown in Map #9.
This perspective is important because the deployment system needs an overlap of units to ensure
the delivery of multiple units when needed for more serious incidents or to handle simultaneous
calls for service. Much of the density is in Station 1’s area.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 49 of 190
Map #13 – All Fire Location Densities
Map #13 is similar to Map #10 but shows the hot spots of activity for all types of fires during the
last four years. Fire density is greater in the areas of the City with higher population densities and
the Interstate 5 corridor for automobile fires.
Map #14 – All Structure Fire Location Densities
Map #14 is similar to Map #11 but shows the hot spots for structure fire activity over the last four
years. Given the location of the ladder truck and Battalion Chief in the center of Carlsbad, the
multiple-unit coverage cannot reach the northwest Carlsbad Village area, western Poinsettia areas,
and southeast La Costa areas. The Carlsbad Village area, being the oldest area of the City,
experiences the greatest number of building fires in the City.
2.6.2 Road Mile Coverage Measures
In addition to the visual displays of coverage that maps provide, the geographic mapping software
allows the miles of public streets covered at 4:00 and 8:00 minutes to be measured. The following
table provides these metrics for the coverage versus the impacts of traffic congestion in the current
station system.
Table 12—Service Area Road Mile Coverage Comparison (No Mutual Aid)
Measure Total Road Miles (Within City Limits)
Miles Reached by Open Fire Stations and Percent of Total Public Miles Covered
Difference in Miles Covered Map View
4-Minute First-Due 739.9 247.3 492.6 3a 33% of total public miles
4-Minute First-Due (Traffic Congestion) 739.9 175.6 564.3 3a 24% of total public miles
8-Minute ERF* 739.9 193.1 546.8 5 26% of total public miles
8-Minute ERF*
(Traffic Congestion) 739.9 54.5 685.4 5 7% of total public miles
* ERF consists of three engines, one ladder truck, one rescue ambulance, and one Battalion Chief
The existing 4:00-minute first-due unit coverage only reaches 33 percent of the public streets in
Carlsbad. This coverage is reduced to 24 percent during traffic congestion. The ERF coverage is
also weak at 26 percent and with traffic congestion it drops significantly to 7 percent.
The City’s geography, which is bisected by hills, lagoons, canyons, and freeways, is difficult to
serve efficiently from six fire stations. Traffic congestion travel time reductions further reduce
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 50 of 190
coverage between fire stations and in the peripheral City areas. This means that when simultaneous
incidents occur during peak hours of traffic congestion, a second-due unit from a station further
away has a long response time.
Scenarios to improve the existing limited coverage model are discussed in Section 2.8 with
corresponding scenario maps.
Finding #3: The geographic mapping analysis indicates that the City’s six fire
stations cannot provide neighborhood-based first-due unit coverage
at a best practice desired 4:00-minute travel time.
Finding #4: Given the location of the City’s single aerial ladder truck at Fire
Station 5, areas of the City outside of the core do not receive an
Effective Response Force (First Alarm) within 8:00 minutes travel
time.
Finding #5: The geographic mapping analysis indicates that the older northwest
Carlsbad Village area has more demand for service (both for EMS
incidents and fires) but does not receive multiple units when needed
in less than 8:00 minutes travel time.
Finding #6: The effect of traffic congestion at peak hours of the day is that first-
due neighborhood unit coverage is reduced to only 24 percent of the
City’s public streets at a 4:00-minute travel time measure. The
Effective Response Force travel time measure is reduced from 26
percent to only 7 percent.
Finding #7: The geographic mapping analysis indicates that, even without traffic
congestion or the impact of simultaneous incidents, the only way to
close response time gaps is with more response units in one to three
more locations.
2.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The map sets described in Section 2.6 and presented in
Volume 2 show the ideal situation for response times and
the response effectiveness given perfect conditions with no
units out of place or simultaneous calls for service.
Examination of the actual response time data provides a
picture of actual response performance with simultaneous
SOC ELEMENT 7 OF 8
RELIABILITY &
HISTORICAL RESPONSE
EFFECTIVENESS
STUDIES
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 51 of 190
calls, rush-hour traffic congestion, units out of position, and delayed travel time for events such as
periods of severe weather.
The following subsections provide summary statistical information regarding the Department and
its services.
2.7.1 Demand for Service
The Department provided National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) 5 text files and a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with apparatus response data for four years from January 1, 2016
through December 31, 2019. These two data sources were merged, providing 50,867 incidents and
96,711 apparatus response records.
In 2019, the Department responded to 13,331 incidents. During this period, the Department had a
daily demand of 36.52 incidents, of which 1.58 percent were to fire incidents, 65.43 percent were
to EMS incidents, and 32.99 percent were to other incident types. As shown below, the growth
year over year is modest, but steady.
Figure 7—Annual Service Demand by Year
The following figure illustrates the number of incidents by incident type. The number of EMS
incidents rose in each of the years, as did other incident types to a lesser degree, while fires
remained fairly steady.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 52 of 190
Figure 8—Number of Incidents by Year by Incident Type
Figure 9 shows service demand by hour of day by year, illustrating that calls for service occur at
every hour of the day and night, requiring fire suppression and EMS response capability 24 hours
per day, every day of the year. There is a slight annual variance in hourly volume during the
afternoon and early evening hours.
Figure 9—Service Demand by Hour of Day and Year
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 53 of 190
Finding #8: The Department’s service demand is consistent, indicating the need
for a 24-hour-per-day, seven-day-per-week fire and emergency
medical services response system.
The following figure illustrates the number of incidents by station during the four-year analysis
period. Station CB1 had the highest volume of activity, while Station CB5 had the lowest.
Figure 10—Number of Incidents by Station
The following table lists the more significant incident quantities above the count of 40 in 2019.
Note that EMS incidents far outnumber all other incident types.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 54 of 190
Table 13—Incidents: Quantity by Incident Type – 2019
Federal NFIRS # and Incident Type 2019
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 7,895
611 Dispatched and canceled en route 1,996
322 Vehicle accident with injuries 447
554 Assist invalid 382
622 No incident found on arrival of incident address 338
324 Motor vehicle accident no injuries 263
552 Police matter 170
735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 150
541 Animal problem 118
733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 114
745 Alarm system sounded, no fire – unintentional 111
700 False alarm or false call, other 95
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 84
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire – unintentional 82
600 Good intent call, other 81
553 Public service 77
736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 76
111 Building fire 54
740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 51
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 47
551 Assist police or other governmental agency 42
The following table illustrates the more significant types of incident property use in 2019. The
highest rankings for incidents by property use are residential dwellings.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 55 of 190
Table 14—Incidents: Quantity by Property Use – 2019
Federal NFIRS # and Property Use 2019
419 1 or 2 family dwelling 3,915
429 Multi-family dwellings 1,451
311 24-hour care nursing homes, 4 or more persons 1,024
449 Hotel/motel, commercial 575
965 Vehicle parking area 518
961 Highway or divided highway 484
963 Street or road in commercial area 583
962 Residential street, road or residential driveway 394
960 Street, other 180
340 Clinics, doctors’ offices, hemodialysis centers 182
599 Business office 219
161 Restaurant or cafeteria 159
519 Food and beverage sales, grocery store 141
937 Beach 97
215 High school/junior high school/middle school 79
888 Fire station 79
571 Service station, gas station 72
213 Elementary school, including kindergarten 60
400 Residential, other 50
2.7.2 Simultaneous Incident Activity
Simultaneous incidents occur when other incidents are underway at the time a new incident
develops. During 2019, 58.07 percent of incidents occurred while one or more other incidents were
underway.
The following table shows the percentage of simultaneous incidents in 2019 by number of
simultaneous incidents.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 56 of 190
Table 15—Proportion of Simultaneous Incidents – 2019
Number of Simultaneous Incidents Percentage
1 or more 58.07%
2 or more 23.69%
3 or more 07.49%
4 or more 01.96%
The following figure shows the number of simultaneous incidents by year. There was a slight peak
in simultaneous incidents in 2017.
Figure 11—Number of Simultaneous Incidents by Year
In a larger city, simultaneous incidents in different station areas have very little operational
consequence. However, when simultaneous incidents occur within a single station area, there can
be significant delays in response times.
The following figure illustrates the number of single-station simultaneous incidents by station area
by year. Station CB1 has the highest number of single-station-area simultaneous incidents,
followed by a distant Station CB4.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 57 of 190
Figure 12—Number of Single-Station Simultaneous Incidents by Station by Year
Finding #9: The largest impact of simultaneous incidents is felt in Station 1’s
area. This shifts workload to engines further away in other station
areas at peak hours of the day. When Station 3 and/or 4 engines
respond into the Carlsbad Village area, there is a large under-
covered area of the City north of Station 5.
2.7.3 Workload by Unit-Hour Utilization
Maintaining response time performance is a function of three interdependent issues—time over
distance, rate of simultaneous incidents, and the workload per unit at peak demand hours of the
day. The following tables show the percent of time per hour, across 12 months, that units are
committed to 9-1-1 incidents. This time does not include returning to active status after an incident
due to clean-up, maintenance, training, inspections, public relations activities, refueling, etc.
The utilization percentage for apparatus is calculated by two primary factors: the number of
responses and the duration of responses. The following table is a unit-hour utilization (UHU)
summary for Department engine companies.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 58 of 190
Table 16—Unit-Hour Utilization – Engine Companies – 2019
Hour E101 E104 E102 E103 E106
00:00 9.98% 5.17% 4.27% 2.88% 3.27%
01:00 8.15% 3.65% 4.68% 3.26% 2.64%
02:00 9.26% 3.47% 4.16% 1.92% 2.59%
03:00 7.11% 4.41% 2.35% 3.04% 1.43%
04:00 6.12% 2.71% 4.23% 1.77% 1.91%
05:00 7.99% 4.24% 2.73% 1.79% 3.46%
06:00 9.67% 4.77% 5.17% 2.55% 2.70%
07:00 11.13% 5.15% 6.80% 3.35% 3.43%
08:00 13.66% 7.64% 7.86% 4.56% 4.85%
09:00 10.20% 8.57% 7.19% 5.15% 6.68%
10:00 13.28% 9.37% 7.87% 8.49% 6.01%
11:00 12.97% 12.70% 9.07% 7.86% 5.56%
12:00 14.36% 10.92% 9.11% 7.37% 7.14%
13:00 15.09% 11.64% 10.83% 6.86% 6.80%
14:00 13.21% 10.36% 11.01% 8.12% 5.41%
15:00 11.50% 7.70% 9.44% 7.96% 6.61%
16:00 14.51% 11.13% 9.50% 5.81% 4.28%
17:00 17.91% 10.87% 9.47% 8.22% 6.43%
18:00 15.47% 10.00% 9.33% 7.22% 5.90%
19:00 16.34% 7.81% 8.14% 4.77% 5.38%
20:00 12.91% 8.90% 9.09% 5.26% 3.40%
21:00 10.95% 10.32% 6.83% 4.70% 3.41%
22:00 10.61% 5.48% 5.12% 3.37% 4.31%
23:00 7.81% 7.19% 6.15% 2.81% 3.84%
The following table shows a UHU summary for the Department’s rescue ambulances. The UHU
rates for the single ladder truck are not significant enough to display.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 59 of 190
Table 17—Unit-Hour Utilization – Rescue Ambulances – 2019
Hour RA101 RA102 RA103
00:00 17.74% 12.75% 5.35%
01:00 14.94% 12.36% 6.25%
02:00 18.05% 11.16% 4.80%
03:00 9.86% 10.98% 5.52%
04:00 12.04% 8.12% 5.06%
05:00 12.32% 14.13% 6.22%
06:00 17.84% 14.80% 9.05%
07:00 20.72% 22.74% 10.53%
08:00 28.67% 26.43% 17.83%
09:00 24.82% 27.04% 25.04%
10:00 24.46% 30.23% 25.26%
11:00 25.15% 27.76% 25.21%
12:00 26.53% 30.83% 23.33%
13:00 31.90% 28.89% 24.63%
14:00 28.78% 29.55% 24.30%
15:00 24.35% 26.87% 24.42%
16:00 32.66% 23.98% 25.30%
17:00 29.53% 26.28% 20.89%
18:00 25.39% 27.96% 21.34%
19:00 22.27% 20.98% 16.97%
20:00 21.05% 24.20% 13.71%
21:00 20.50% 22.66% 13.13%
22:00 20.07% 17.12% 10.58%
23:00 15.31% 13.11% 7.90%
During the nine-hour daytime work period, when crews on a 24-hour shift must also pay attention
to apparatus checkout, station duties, training, fire prevention inspections, public education, and
paperwork, plus required physical training and meal breaks, Citygate believes the maximum
commitment UHU percentage per hour, hour after hour, across the nine-hour workday period
should not exceed 30 percent. Beyond that, the most important duties to suffer will be training
hours and fire prevention inspections.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 60 of 190
While the City’s engine and ladder truck UHU rates do not yet approach saturation levels of 30
percent hour over hour, during the peak demand daylight hours, two of the City’s rescue
ambulances are near or exceeding 30 percent UHU and the third rescue ambulance maintains a
high of 25 percent UHU.
Finding #10: The unit-hour utilization workload during the daytime on two of
three rescue ambulances is near or exceeding the recommended
maximum of 30 percent, and the third rescue ambulance is not far
behind. This factor, combined with the simultaneous incident rate in
Station 1 (Carlsbad Village), is a significant problem to providing
adequate rescue ambulance response times in the northwest area of
the City.
2.7.4 Operational Performance
Performance for the first apparatus to arrive on the scene of emergency incidents is measured by
the time necessary for 90 percent completion of the following components:
◆ Call processing
◆ Turnout
◆ Travel
◆ Dispatch to arrival
◆ Call to arrival
The following analysis shows the Department’s performance for each of these components.
Call Processing
Call processing measures the time from the first incident time stamp in North Comm until
apparatus are notified of the request for assistance. The 15 seconds that is needed for Carlsbad’s
Police Department’s Public Safety Answering Point to answer and transfer the call to North Comm
is not in the following performance times shown.
The following table shows that call processing is 1:08 minutes for 90 percent compliance.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 61 of 190
Table 18—Call Processing – 90 Percent Performance – 2019
Station 2019
Department-wide 01:08
Station 1 01:11
Station 2 01:06
Station 3 01:06
Station 4 01:12
Station 5 01:04
Station 6 01:03
Finding #11: Call processing performance, at 1:08 minutes for 90 percent of the
fire and EMS incidents, is better than a best practice
recommendation of 1:30 minutes.
Turnout
Turnout measures the time from apparatus notification until the apparatus starts traveling to the
scene. Citygate’s goal for turnout is 2:00 minutes. Carlsbad’s fire crews largely meet the 2:00-
minute turnout goal.
Table 19—Turnout – 90 Percent Performance – 2019
Station 2019
Department-wide 01:59
Station 1 01:52
Station 2 01:56
Station 3 02:10
Station 4 02:02
Station 5 02:02
Station 6 02:09
Finding #12: Department-wide crew turnout performance, at 1:59 minutes for 90
percent of the fire and EMS incidents, is within a Citygate-
recommended goal of 2:00 minutes.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 62 of 190
Travel
Travel measures the time to travel to the scene of the emergency. In most urban and suburban fire
departments, a 4:00-minute travel time 90 percent of the time is considered highly desirable. Table
20 shows that no stations achieve that goal.
Table 20—Travel – 90 Percent Performance – 2019
Station 2019
Department-wide 06:43
Station 1 06:22
Station 2 06:29
Station 3 06:40
Station 4 07:24
Station 5 06:50
Station 6 07:08
The following table shows travel time performance by station at 15-second durations beginning at
6:00 minutes. Performance closest to 90 percent is highlighted for each station.
Table 21—Travel by Station Area – 90 Percent Performance – 2019
Travel Duration Station CB1 Station CB2 Station CB3 Station CB4 Station CB5 Station CB6
Travel at 6 Minutes 88.10% 86.00% 82.70% 77.30% 78.10% 73.70%
Travel at 6:15 89.30% 88.30% 86.00% 80.50% 83.00% 79.40%
Travel at 6:30 91.00% 90.20% 88.30% 83.40% 85.80% 83.80%
Travel at 6:45 92.80% 92.00% 90.60% 86.20% 88.90% 86.50%
Travel at 7 Minutes 93.80% 93.20% 92.50% 88.10% 92.00% 88.80%
Travel at 7:15 94.60% 93.70% 93.70% 89.20% 95.10% 91.70%
Travel at 7:30 95.60% 93.90% 94.50% 90.60% 96.00% 93.20%
The following figure illustrates fractile travel time performance. The peak segment for travel
performance is 240 seconds, or 4:00 minutes. The figure is right shifted, with fewer travel times
less than 4:00 minutes and more travel times much greater than 4:00 minutes.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 63 of 190
Figure 13—Fractile for All Incidents Travel (CAD) – 2019
The following table shows the decay of travel time since 2013, revealing that travel times have
increased 27 seconds Department-wide since 2013, and significantly increased in all station areas
except Station 5.
Table 22—Travel Time Decay From 2013 to 2019 – 90 Percent Performance
Travel Time Department-wide Station CB1 Station CB2 Station CB3 Station CB4 Station CB5 Station CB6
2013 6:16 5:13 6:08 5:50 6:51 6:52 6:25
2019 6:43 6:22 6:29 6:40 7:24 6:50 7:08
4:00 Minutes
u
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 64 of 190
The following graph shows the increases in 90 percent travel time performance from 2013 to 2019
and, if nothing material changes, how the travel times will likely continue to erode until 2030 based
on a linear Department-wide forecast.
Figure 14—2013–2019 Straight-Line Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by
Station With 2030 Forecast
The following graph shows the 90 percent travel time performance Department-wide by year and
by station from 2013–2019. Additionally, similar to the previous graph, a linear Department-wide
forecast dashed line is also provided.
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
2013 2019
2013–2019 Straight-Line Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by Station
With 2030 Forecast
Department-Wide
Station CB1
Station CB2
Station CB3
Station CB4
Station CB5
Station CB6
Linear (Department-Wide)
2030
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 65 of 190
Figure 15—2013–2019 Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by Station With
Linear Department-Wide Forecast
Finding #13: First-due unit travel time, at 6:43 minutes for 90 percent of the fire
and EMS incidents, is 2:43 slower than a best practice urban area
goal of 4:00 minutes. The primary causes for this are the challenging
road network and topography, the impact of simultaneous incident
responses, and the high rescue ambulance unit-hour utilization
workloads.
Call to Arrival
Call to arrival measures time from receipt of the request for assistance until the apparatus arrives
on the scene. A best practice goal is 1:30 minutes for call processing, 2:00 minutes for turnout,
and 4:00 minutes for travel. This equates to 7:30 minutes.
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2030
2013–2019 Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and by Station
With Linear Department-Wide Forecast
Department-Wide
Station CB1
Station CB2
Station CB3
Station CB4
Station CB5
Station CB6
Linear (Department-Wide)
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 66 of 190
Table 23—Call to Arrival – 90 Percent Performance – 2019
Station 2019
Department-wide 08:51
Station 1 08:21
Station 2 08:36
Station 3 08:51
Station 4 09:35
Station 5 08:56
Station 6 09:24
The following figure illustrates fractile call to arrival performance. Due to long travel times, this
graph is also right shifted. The peak segment for call to arrival performance is 390 seconds, or 6:30
minutes.
Figure 16—Fractile for Incidents Call to First Arrival – 2019
Finding #14: The Department’s call to arrival time, at 8:51 minutes for 90 percent
of the fire and EMS incidents, is 1:21 slower than Citygate’s
recommended goal of 7:30 minutes. The reason is due to longer
travel times.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 67 of 190
Effective Response Force (First Alarm) Concentration Measurements
The desired ERF for structure fires from the Department is three engines, one ladder truck, one
rescue ambulance, and one Battalion Chief, totaling 15 personnel. Given only one Battalion Chief
Citywide, the following measure is only for the engines, one ladder truck, and one rescue
ambulance.
A best practice goal for the ERF (First Alarm) is that the last arriving unit should take no longer
than 8:00 minutes travel time. There are very few incidents in one year that need all the units to
arrive within 8:00 minutes travel time. Thus, the following times also show the counts in
parenthesis.
Table 24—Distribution – Effective Response Force (First Alarm) – Travel – 90 Percent
Performance – 2019
Station 2019
Department-wide 16:43 (5)
Station 1 12:42 (1)
Station 2 08:41 (1)
Station 3 No incidents
Station 4 09:48 (1)
Station 5 No incidents
Station 6 16:43 (2)
Finding #15: The Effective Response Force (First Alarm) travel times, at 16:43
minutes for 90 percent of the fire and EMS incidents, is 5:13 minutes
longer than the best practice and Citygate-recommended goal of
8:00 minutes, and as with first-due units, reflects Carlsbad’s
challenging road network and topography.
2.8 OVERALL DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION
This section will first analyze deployment system
improvements given the findings of the geographic
mapping and incident statistics analysis. After those test
scenarios are reviewed, Citygate will conclude this section
with a comprehensive evaluation and recommendations.
SOC ELEMENT 8 OF 8
DEPLOYMENT
EVALUATION
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 68 of 190
2.8.1 Deployment Improvement Scenarios
These scenarios are supported by maps which can be found at the back of Volume 2 (Map Atlas).
Scenario #1 – Add a Seventh Station and Relocate the Ladder Truck
Given the risks to be protected in the Carlsbad Village area, the high EMS demand, the structure
fire density, and tourism in a coastal two-freeway zone, Citygate studied this area first. Existing
Fire Station 1 already has two crews—an engine and rescue ambulance. The station cannot, if at
all, be modified or totally replaced to add a third crew (the ladder truck). Placing the ladder truck
at Station 1 also moves it too far to the northwest. Adding a unit at Station 1 also does not improve
travel time gap coverage.
Given these findings, Citygate tested a seventh station site near the intersection of Avenida Encinas
and Cannon Road. A first responder unit at this location provides three improvements:
◆ Faster backup unit coverage for simultaneous calls into the Carlsbad Village area.
◆ Prompt backup to the City center and northeast via Cannon Road.
◆ Faster response to the nearby coastal tourism areas as well as Interstate 5 without
needing a unit from Station 1.
As for the type of unit, the Department’s ladder truck is also a limited firefighting pumper,
commonly called a “quint” as it has the capabilities to provide five functions, not just an aerial
ladder. Given the building fire pattern in the northwest corner of the City, and the need to improve
the ladder coverage Citywide, Citygate and staff agreed the best solution was to move the ladder
truck / quint to new Station 7 and then staff Station 5 with a standard three-person engine company.
Scenario Map #1a shows the added first responder 4:00-minute travel time coverage of a seventh
station. Even with traffic congestion, the added station connects 4:00-minute coverage to the south
side of the Carlsbad Village area, along with connecting coverage to Stations 3 and 4. This
coverage model assumes there is a staffed regular fire engine at Station 5.
Scenario Map #1b displays the 8:00-minute ERF travel time changes of adding Station 7 with the
ladder truck. Comparing data shown in the following Table 25 to the previous Table 12, the overall
road miles covered improves from 26 percent to 39 percent (without congestion) and from 7
percent to 11 percent (with congestion). The ERF coverage moves more to the west of El Camino
Real and improves in the edges of the Carlsbad Village area, some of Station 3’s area, and all of
western Station 4’s area.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 69 of 190
Scenario #2 – Add an Eighth Station in Addition to the Added Seventh Station and Relocated
Ladder Truck
Given the 4:00-minute first response unit gaps southeast of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino
Real, Citygate looked at the road network, population, and incident densities and believes filling
the gap north of Alga to the east City limits would be the best next station addition, given there are
two stations in the southeast City, south of Alga. Staff identified a possible parcel to test at the
southeast corner of the intersection at El Fuerte Street and Poinsettia Lane.
Maps for this scenario show the impacts of both the added Station 7 and the move of the ladder
truck to Station 7 (shown in Scenario #1), and the added Station 8 proposed in this scenario.
Scenario Map #2a shows the 4:00-minute coverage and the gaps north of Alga to the City limits
are significantly covered, even with traffic congestion. Comparing data shown in the following
Table 25 to the previous Table 12, with two added stations, the 4:00-minute first-due coverage
improves from 33 percent to 44 percent (without congestion) and from 24 percent to 31 percent
(with congestion).
As Scenario Map #2b shows, given two more stations, the ERF 8:00-minute travel coverage
reduces south of Station 5 because the ladder truck moves to Station 7. However, without the
ladder truck, there would be an engine staffed at Station 5 so the southeast quadrant would receive
three engines in 8:00 minutes, not two. Then, with a Station 8 engine, this rises to four engines in
the area.
Given the largely newer residential areas of Station 8, this is actually a firefighting improvement,
even with the ladder truck being moved. Comparing data shown in the following Table 25 to the
previous Table 12, the road miles of ERF coverage are also improved from 26 percent to 39 percent
(without congestion) and from 7 percent to 11 percent (with congestion).
Scenario Road Miles Covered Measures
The following table shows the road mile improvement measures for the first two scenarios above.
While some of the first-due and multiple-unit gaps are not completely filled, there are significant
improvements with each deployment addition.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 70 of 190
Table 25—Service Area Road Mile Coverage Improvements Comparison – Scenarios #1
and #2 (No Mutual Aid)
Measure
Total Road Miles (Within City Limits)
Miles Reached by Open Fire Stations and Percent of Total Public Miles Covered
Difference in Miles Covered
Scenario Map View
Scenario #1 (Add Station 7 and Relocate Ladder Truck)
4-Minute First-Due 739.9 291.1 448.8 1a 39% of total public miles
4-Minute First-Due (Traffic Congestion) 739.9 202.1 537.8 1a 27% of total public miles
8-Minute ERF 739.9 286 453.9 1b 39% of total public miles
8-Minute ERF (Traffic Congestion) 739.9 79.5 660.4 1b 11% of total public miles
Scenario #2 (Add Station 7 and 8 and Relocate Ladder Truck)
4-Minute First-Due 739.9 323.3 416.6 2a 44% of total public miles
4-Minute First-Due (Traffic Congestion) 739.9 227.2 512.7 2a 31% of total public miles
8-Minute ERF 739.9 286 453.9 2b 39% of total public miles
8-Minute ERF (Traffic Congestion) 739.9 79.5 660.4 2b 11% of total public miles
Scenario #3 – Add Two Rescue Ambulances
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Citygate modeled adding one rescue ambulance at Station 4 and
adding a new Station 7. Given the 8:00-minute coverage from a fourth rescue ambulance is so
large, this alone was not mapped in any coverage scenarios; only adding Engine 7 was modeled.
As the rescue ambulance workload has increased, along with simultaneous incidents and traffic
congestion, there are times the City has two rescue ambulances committed, and the third rescue
ambulance ends up having to travel across half the City. This is more problematic in the southern
City area, as two of the three rescue ambulances are north of Palomar Airport Road, and when
committed (likely into the Carlsbad Village or beach front areas) the Station 2 rescue ambulance
has much of the City to cover. When Carlsbad’s rescue ambulances are committed, ambulances
from San Marcos and Oceanside Fire Departments (via mutual aid) can respond into Carlsbad, but
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 71 of 190
those units are farther away and have their own workload. Mutual aid ambulance coverage should
not have to occur daily or many times per week.
To better balance the rescue ambulance workload and add capacity before a seventh engine can be
added, this scenario tests adding a rescue ambulance each to Stations 4 and 6 (for two total).
Scenario Map #3a shows this positive, overlapping coverage (two or more colors on top of another)
at 8:00 minutes travel time. With three rescue ambulances in the southern City, there is overlap
from Station 4 to the downtown Carlsbad Village area, along with parts of Stations 3 and 5. The
rescue ambulance from Station 6 overlaps Station 2 so if that rescue ambulance was used in the
west, the Station 6 rescue ambulance can cover Stations 2 and 5 while also reducing the need for
a San Marcos ambulance in the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor. Scenario Map #3b shows the
overlapping coverage with and without traffic congestion. The darker colors represent the impacts
of traffic congestion.
Scenario #4 – Coverage Comparison of Relocating the Ladder Truck
This map shows the modified ladder truck coverage from a new Station 7. As with the others, the
green coverage is normal traffic and the orange shows congestion. As can be seen, this provides
coverage for the older, higher risk building areas in the Carlsbad Village area, as well as western
Station 4’s area, much of Station 3’s area, and the business parks and airport around Station 5.
This is very good relocation. When compared to Map #7, the ladder truck coverage is pulled past
8:00 minutes travel, south of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real.
2.8.2 Reducing Remaining Response Time Gaps in Southeast Carlsbad
The City needs to study how it can further improve response times in southeast Carlsbad with both
an eighth and ninth fire station. The traditional approach would be a three-person fire engine in a
single-unit fire station. The land for this may or may not be available. If cost and land constraints
prohibit this choice, the City could look for a small commercial building/parcel that could house a
two-paramedic/firefighter unit. The smaller unit would handle minor to moderate medical
emergencies more quickly and respond with a rescue ambulance crew. During serious
emergencies, the incident would also receive a full fire engine response. Citygate’s term for such
a unit is a Fast Response Unit (FRU).
First utilized in the City of San Diego pursuant to a Citygate deployment study recommendation,
and currently also being deployed in the City of Los Angeles and other jurisdictions, an FRU is
significantly smaller than a traditional fire engine, yet can be configured to provide initial fire
suppression, rescue, and paramedic EMS service capability. Typically built on a commercial
heavy-duty 1.5-ton truck chassis with a crew cab and utility body, an FRU includes a fire pump,
water tank, and fire hose of sufficient capacity to suppress smaller or emerging fires, and ample
storage capacity for personal protective clothing and safety and EMS equipment. Because these
units are smaller than traditional fire engines, they are also more maneuverable in traffic and on
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 72 of 190
narrower streets. More information and photos of the Los Angeles City Fire Department’s Fast
Response Vehicle Program are available at the following link:
https://www.lafd.org/news/lafd-unveils-innovative-fast-response-vehicles
Citygate believes that, in addition to providing increased northern neighborhood deployment
capacity via a seventh station and added rescue ambulances, FRUs in the southeast are a cost-
effective solution to provide “first-aid level” quick fire suppression capabilities, and the added two
personnel increase the total staffing on serious incident ERF dispatches.
Finding #16: The near term, best-fit response time improvements would be to add
one additional rescue ambulance, and add a seventh fire station,
equipped with a relocated ladder truck from Station 5, and staff an
engine at Station 5.
Finding #17: If adding a seventh station will take several years, then the more
immediate solution to response times is to add two rescue
ambulances at Stations 4 and 6.
Finding #18: Improving fire engine response times south of Palomar Airport
Road and east of El Camino would take a minimum of an eighth fire
station with an engine or a two-paramedic/firefighter Fast Response
Unit. If a ninth station is desired, a similar staffing option exists.
2.8.3 Ambulance Economics
When adding rescue ambulances, another consideration is the revenue offset from transport fees.
Ambulance services charge fees to medical insurers, both private and public. However, Medicare
and Medi-Cal severely limit payments and do not pay close to the full cost of a transport, either
with public or private staffing. Private insurance companies will pay a little more. So, to add rescue
ambulances, it is important to consider revenues now and in the near term.
The following chart shows the Fiscal Year (FY) 18/19 ambulance transport payor mix.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 73 of 190
Figure 17—FY 18/19 Ambulance Transport Payor Mix
The next table shows total ambulance revenue from all sources combined for FY 18/19 and the
gross revenue for FY 19/20, as estimated by the Carlsbad Finance Department.
Table 26—FY 18/19 Revenue Summary and FY 19/20 Revenue Estimate
Revenue Amount
FY 18/19 Gross Revenue $5,934,344
FY 18/19 Net Revenue $2,499,395
FY 19/20 Estimated Net Revenue1 $2,761,000
1 Does not include unknowns due to the spring 2020 COVID-19 pandemic
The following table shows the projected FY 20/21 revenues that would result from adding a fourth
and fifth rescue ambulance. There are newer Medicare supplemental payments to government
providers that are also estimated as they come on-line.
Table 27—FY 20/21 Projected Additional Revenues
Revenue Amount
Supplemental government revenue projections $169,000
Additional net revenue from non-mutual-aid transports $240,043
Total $409,043
The implementation of a fourth and fifth rescue ambulance, along with supplemental Medicare
reimbursements, results in a net revenue increase of $409,043. While this revenue is not enough
54%
15%
8%
23%
Medicare Medi-Cal Uninsured and Unknown Private Insurance
Medicare
Medi-Cal
Private Insurance
Uninsured
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 74 of 190
to totally offset the added rescue ambulance expenses, it does significantly help as will be shown
in the next section.
2.8.4 Ambulance Staffing Options
Carlsbad can choose to staff the additional rescue ambulances by using the current ambulance
staffing model or use a modified staffed model. Being a legacy ambulance provider, Carlsbad
staffs the current three rescue ambulances each with two paramedic/firefighters. When this
program started in the late 1970s, medical responses were very low, and a dual-role rescue
ambulance staff system made great sense to “share” the two personnel with firefighting duties.
However, EMS incident growth in America over the last decade has been enormous as more and
more un- and under-insured use the 9-1-1 and emergency room system as their primary health
care. Many EMS incidents today are not critical emergencies requiring the care of two paramedics
during the drive to the hospital.
More recent systems in California operate the ambulances with one paramedic/firefighter and one
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) as a non-paramedic assistant. In these systems, the first of
two paramedics arrives on the fire engine in each neighborhood.
The Department has enough paramedics presently to convert to the model using one
paramedic/firefighter and one EMT for four or five rescue ambulances and still have a paramedic
on every neighborhood fire engine. Thus, from the current three rescue ambulances per day, three
paramedic/firefighters would become available, and when multiplied by three duty platoons, the
total is nine. This provides the Department with the following two choices, given COVID-19 and
the time needed to open a seventh fire station:
◆ Add an Engine 7 and one rescue ambulance. One rescue ambulance paramedic
becomes available per day and offsets one of the three crew spots on Engine 7.
◆ Alternatively, the Department could add a fourth and fifth rescue ambulance now,
and the single available paramedic per day could be placed as a fourth crew member
on the aerial ladder truck improving its abilities and adding to the ERF personnel
count Citywide.
To provide EMTs for a five-ambulance model, five EMTs per day are needed, and when multiplied
by three duty platoons, 15 total EMTs have to be hired. However, these positions are less expensive
than sworn firefighters as they are non-sworn EMTs in the newest, non-safety CalPERS pension
plan.
Table 28 shows the cost of moving to a fourth rescue ambulance and an added Engine 7, which
was modeled before the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 29 shows the cost of immediately moving to
five ambulances as Station/Engine 7 will take several years, even without impacts from COVID-
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 75 of 190
19. In that model, the extra paramedic/firefighter is added as a fourth crew member to the aerial
ladder truck.
In these two tables, an existing two-paramedic/firefighter rescue ambulance crew is split. There
are three crew platoons—A, B, and C. So, when a team is split on three rescue ambulances and the
paramedic is replaced with a non-sworn EMT, three paramedics multiplied by three platoons
equals nine paramedic/firefighters to re-deploy. Thus, each new rescue ambulance uses one
redeployed paramedic/firefighter per day (three or six total) plus one EMT per day (three or six
total).
Table 28—Personnel Cost of Adding One Rescue Ambulance and a Seventh Fire Station
Deployment Change PM/FFs That Become Available
Staff Needed Per Shift
Total Staff Needed for 3 Shifts
Total Added Compensation
Add 4th RA Using Current Staffing (2 PM/FFs)
Add 2 PM/FFs to the 4th RA 0 2 PM/FF 6 PM/FF $880,038
Add 4th RA Using Modified Staffing (1 PM/FF and 1 EMT) and Add 7th Engine
Add 1 EMT on all 4 RAs and remove 1 PM/FF from existing 3 RAs 9 PM/FF 4 EMT 12 EMT
$1,561,797 Add 1 PM/FF to the 4th RA 0 1 PM/FF 3 PM/FF
Add 7th engine 6 FTE 3 FTE 3 FTE
Add Station 8 and 9 with Fast Response Units
Add 2 Fast Response Units (one per station) - 4 FTE 12 FTE Future
Note: RA = rescue ambulance; PM/FF = paramedic/firefighter
Table 29—Personnel Cost of Adding a Fourth and Fifth Rescue Ambulance
Deployment Change PM/FFs That Become Available
Staff Needed Per Shift
Total Staff Needed for 3 Shifts
Total Added Compensation
Add 1 EMT on all 5 RAs and remove 1 PM/FF from existing 3 RAs 9 PM/FF 5 EMT 15 EMT $1,265,130
Add 1 PM/FF to the 4th and 5th RA 0 2 PM/FF 6 PM/FF 0
Move 4th PM/FF to ladder truck 0 1 PM/FF 3 PM/FF 0
Subtract the revenue increase of $409,043 from adding two RAs to partially offset added personnel costs Net Increase: $856,087
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 76 of 190
Finding #19: The most cost-effective method to deploy two rescue ambulances is
to move ambulance staffing to a model utilizing one
paramedic/firefighter and one non-sworn Emergency Medical
Technician.
2.8.5 Comprehensive Evaluation and Recommendations
The Carlsbad Fire Department serves a diverse urban population with a mixed residential and non-
residential land-use pattern typical of a north San Diego County coastal city.
While the state fire code now requires fire sprinklers even in residential dwellings, it will be many
more decades before enough homes are built or remodeled with automatic fire sprinklers. If desired
outcomes include limiting building fire damage to only part of the inside of an effected building
and/or minimizing permanent impairment resulting from a medical emergency, the City will need
both first-due unit and multiple-unit ERF coverage in all neighborhoods consistent with service
goals to limit fire severity and to provide paramedic-level rescue ambulance care.
The challenge in Carlsbad is cost-effectively providing 4:00- and 8:00-minute travel time coverage
due to a mostly non-grid road network design that traverses geography with hills, lagoons,
canyons, and open spaces, hampered further with limited crossings at freeways and rail lines.
The travel times will continue to decay in the City as total EMS incidents climb and traffic
congestion occurs at peak hours. As covered in this report, the problem is that, at approximately
38 square miles, a city of Carlsbad’s size cannot be covered with best practice response times from
only six fire stations due to road design and topography. Many cities of Carlsbad’s size, with better
grid style road networks on easier topography, would easily field eight to ten fire stations.
The EMS workload and travel time challenges have progressed over time, and in the case of EMS
incidents, exceeded projections made in early 2006. Carlsbad has increased resources as the City
evolved. Engines and ambulances were added at infrequent intervals, based on significant need. It
has been 31 years since adding a fire engine and 14 years since adding an ambulance, despite
significant EMS incident growth, as the following table shows.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 77 of 190
Table 30—EMS Incident Growth and City Deployment Changes Since 1990
Year Event Population Number of EMS Incidents
EMS Incidents per 1,000 Resident Population
1990 Fire Station/Engine 6 opened in mid-1989 63,388 2,246 35/1,000
2006 Third ambulance was added full-time in 2006 92,753 5,040 54/1,000
2019 EMS workload analysis for Citygate SOC study 114,420 8,722* 76/1,000
Percentage Increase (1990 to 2019) 81% 288% 117%
*8,600 was projected for 2024 in 2006 analysis
The Department’s dispatch and turnout times meet best practices. There are no time savings to be
gained from these segments of total response time. Travel time cannot safely be improved by
driving faster. The only way to stabilize, much less improve, travel time is to increase deployment
from more fire and EMS first responder units, and ideally more stations located closer together.
EMS incident growth in America over the last decade has been enormous as more and more un-
and under-insured use the 9-1-1 and emergency room system as their primary health care. The
effects of COVID-19 may temper this for a while, but until medical economics change to provide
insured care pathways for mild acuity events other than calling 9-1-1 for an emergency room visit,
there is not a likely downturn for EMS incident growth.
Carlsbad’s rescue ambulance workload is at or very near saturation. This is the City’s most
pressing need. Adding more rescue ambulances will at least stabilize response times and, when
one rescue ambulance is busy, the next-due rescue ambulance will be closer.
Given these issues and the high rescue ambulance unit workload, several improvements could be
gained by implementing the following changes (shown in priority order):
1. Add a fourth rescue ambulance while moving to a model consisting of one
paramedic/firefighter and one Emergency Medical Technician (EMT); also add a
seventh fire station south of Carlsbad Village along the coast.
2. Add a fourth and fifth rescue ambulance while moving to a model consisting of one
paramedic/firefighter and one EMT.
3. In a later phase, after evaluating response times after the addition of rescue
ambulances and an added seventh station suggested in #1 and #2 above, consider
adding an eighth and ninth station in the southern City with either two-person Fast
Response Units or full three-person engine companies.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 78 of 190
Recommendations
Based on the technical analysis and findings contained in this SOC assessment, Citygate offers the
following deployment recommendations:
Recommendation #1: Adopt Updated Deployment Policies: The City Council
should adopt updated, complete performance measures to
aid deployment planning and to monitor performance.
The measures of time should be designed to deliver
outcomes that will save patients when possible and keep
small but serious fires from becoming more serious. With
this is mind, Citygate recommends the following
measures:
1.1 Distribution of Fire Stations: To treat pre-hospital
medical emergencies and control small fires, the first-due
unit should arrive within 7:30 minutes, 90 percent of the
time from the receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North Comm.
This equates to a 90-second dispatch time, a 2:00-minute
company turnout time, and a 4:00-minute travel time.
1.2 Multiple-Unit Effective Response Force for Serious
Emergencies: To confine building fires near the room of
origin, keep vegetation fires under five acres in size,
extricate trapped victims within 30:00 minutes, and treat
multiple medical patients at a single incident, a multiple-
unit Effective Response Force should arrive within 11:30
minutes, 90 percent of the time from the receipt of the
9-1-1 call at North Comm. This equates to a 90-second
dispatch time, 2:00-minute company turnout time, and
8:00-minute travel time.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 79 of 190
1.3 Hazardous Materials Response: Provide hazardous
materials response designed to protect the City from the
hazards associated with uncontrolled release of hazardous
and toxic materials. The fundamental mission of the
Department’s response is to isolate the hazard, deny entry
into the hazard zone, and notify appropriate
officials/resources to minimize impacts on the
community. This can be achieved with a first-due total
response time of 7:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time
from the receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North Comm, to
provide initial hazard evaluation and/or mitigation
actions. After the initial evaluation is completed, a
determination can be made whether to request additional
resources from the regional hazardous materials team.
1.4 Technical Rescue: Respond to technical rescue
emergencies as efficiently and effectively as possible
with enough trained personnel to facilitate a successful
rescue with a first-due total response time of 7:30
minutes, 90 percent of the time from the receipt of the
9-1-1 call at North Comm, to evaluate the situation and/or
initiate rescue actions. Following the initial evaluation,
assemble additional resources as needed within a total
response time of 11:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time
from the receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North Comm, to
safely complete rescue/extrication and delivery of the
victim to the appropriate emergency medical care facility.
Recommendation #2: The City and its firefighters should jointly consider
modifying the staffing of its rescue ambulances to one
paramedic/firefighter and one non-sworn Emergency
Medical Technician.
Recommendation #3: The City should add a seventh fire station near the
intersection of Avenida Encinas and Cannon Road and a
fourth rescue ambulance to Station 4 using the modified
ambulance staffing model.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 80 of 190
Recommendation #4: When a seventh fire station is opened, relocate the aerial
ladder truck to Station 7 and staff a standard fire engine
at Station 5.
Recommendation #5: If adding the seventh fire station will take several years,
improve rescue ambulance deployment as soon as
resources allow by adding a fourth and fifth rescue
ambulance to Stations 4 and 6 using the modified
ambulance staffing model.
Recommendation #6: Once Station 7 is operational, and the Department
operates four or five rescue ambulances, monitor
response times and consider adding Fast Response Units
or engines at an eighth and possibly ninth fire station.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 81 of 190
This page was intentionally left blank
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 82 of 190
APPENDIX A—RISK ASSESSMENT
A.1 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
The third element of the Standards of Coverage (SOC)
process is a community risk assessment. Within the context
of an SOC study, the objectives of a community risk
assessment are to:
◆ Identify the values at risk to be protected
within the community or service area.
◆ Identify the specific hazards with the potential to adversely impact the community
or service area.
◆ Quantify the overall risk associated with each hazard.
◆ Establish a foundation for current/future deployment decisions and risk-
reduction/hazard-mitigation planning and evaluation.
A hazard is broadly defined as a situation or condition that can cause or contribute to harm.
Examples include fire, medical emergency, vehicle collision, earthquake, and flood. Risk is
broadly defined as the probability of hazard occurrence in combination with the likely severity of
resultant impacts to people, property, and the community.
A.1.1 Risk Assessment Methodology
The methodology employed by Citygate to assess community risks as an integral element of an
SOC study incorporates the following elements:
◆ Identification of geographic planning sub-zones (risk zones) appropriate to the
community or jurisdiction.
◆ Identification and quantification (to the extent data is available) of the specific
values at risk to various hazards within the community or service area.
◆ Identification of the fire and non-fire hazards to be evaluated.
◆ Determination of the probability of occurrence for each hazard.
◆ Identification and evaluation of multiple relevant impact severity factors for each
hazard by planning zone using agency/jurisdiction-specific data and information.
◆ Quantification of overall risk for each hazard based on probability of occurrence in
combination with probable impact severity, as shown in the following figure.
SOC ELEMENT 3 OF 8
COMMUNITY RISK
ASSESSMENT
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 83 of 190
Figure 18—Overall Risk
Citygate used the following data sources for this study to understand the hazards and values to be
protected in the City of Carlsbad (City):
◆ U. S. Census Bureau population and demographic data
◆ City geographical information systems (GIS) data
◆ City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning information
◆ San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
◆ Fire Department data and information.
A.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary
Citygate’s evaluation of the values at risk and hazards likely to impact the City yields the
following:
1. The Fire Department serves a diverse urban population with densities ranging from
less than 500 to more than 5,000 people per square mile over a widely varied land
use pattern.
2. Over the next 15 years, the City’s population is projected to grow modestly by 13.5
percent to nearly 130,000.
Probability Impact Severity
Overall Risk
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 84 of 190
3. The City has a large inventory of residential and non-residential buildings to be
protected.
4. The City has significant economic and other resource values to be protected, as
identified in this assessment.
5. The City has a mass emergency notification system to effectively communicate
emergency information to the public in a timely manner.
6. The City’s overall risk for six hazards related to emergency services provided by
the Fire Department range from Low to High, as summarized in Table 31.
Table 31—Overall Risk by Hazard
Hazard Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
1 Building Fire Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low
2 Vegetation/Wildland Fire Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate
3 Medical Emergency High High High High High High
4 Hazardous Materials Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low
5 Technical Rescue Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low
6 Earthquake Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
A.1.3 Planning Zones
The Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) recommends that jurisdictions
establish geographic planning zones to better understand risk at a sub-jurisdictional level. For
example, portions of a jurisdiction may contain predominantly moderate risk building occupancies,
such as detached single-family residences, while other areas contain high- or maximum-risk
occupancies, such as commercial and industrial buildings with a high hazard fire load. If risk were
to be evaluated on a jurisdiction-wide basis, the predominant moderate risk could outweigh the
high or maximum risk and may not be a significant factor in an overall assessment of risk. If,
however, those high- or maximum-risk occupancies are a larger percentage of the risk in a smaller
planning zone, then it becomes a more significant risk factor. Another consideration in establishing
planning zones is that the jurisdiction’s record management system must also track the specific
zone for each incident to be able to appropriately evaluate service demand and response
performance relative to each specific zone. For this assessment, Citygate utilized six planning
zones corresponding with each fire station’s first-due response area, as shown in Figure 19.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 85 of 190
Figure 19—Risk Planning Zones
A.1.4 Values at Risk to Be Protected
Values at risk, broadly defined, are tangibles of significant importance or value to the community
or jurisdiction potentially at risk of harm or damage from a hazard occurrence. Values at risk
typically include people, critical facilities/infrastructure, buildings, and key economic, cultural,
historic, or natural resources.
People
Residents, employees, visitors, and travelers in a community or jurisdiction are vulnerable to harm
from a hazard occurrence. Particularly vulnerable are specific at-risk populations, including those
unable to care for themselves or self-evacuate in the event of an emergency. At-risk populations
typically include children less than 10 years of age, the elderly, and people housed in institutional
settings. Table 32 summarizes key demographic data for Carlsbad.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 86 of 190
Table 32—Key Demographic Data – City of Carlsbad
Demographic 2019
Population 114,420
Under 10 Years 11.4%
10–14 Years 6.6%
15–64 Years 64.3%
65–74 Years 10.0%
75 Years and Older 7.7%
Median Age 41.9
Daytime Population 140,520
Housing Units 47,276
Owner-Occupied 62.1%
Renter-Occupied 32.1%
Vacant 5.8%
Average Family Size 3.05
Median Home Value $828,265
Ethnicity
Caucasian 79.8%
Hispanic/Latino (included as Caucasian) 15.4%
Asian 8.5%
Black/African American 1.4%
Other 10.3%
Education (Population over 24 Years of Age) 81,178
High School Graduate 96.0%
Undergraduate Degree 34.1%
Graduate/Professional Degree 25.7%
Employment (Population over 15 Years of Age) 93,757
In Labor Force 96.0%
Unemployed 4.0%
Per Capita Income $57,993
Population below Poverty Level 9.5%
Population without Health Insurance Coverage 5.9%
Source: ESRI and U.S. Census Bureau
Of note from Table 32 is the following:
◆ More than 29 percent of the City population is under 10 years or over 65 years of
age
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 87 of 190
◆ The City’s population is predominantly Caucasian (80 percent), followed by
Hispanic/Latino (15 percent and counted as Caucasian), other ethnicities (10
percent), Asian (9 percent), and Black / African American (1 percent)
◆ Of the population over 24 years of age, 96 percent has completed high school or an
equivalent education
◆ Of the population over 24 years of age, nearly 60 percent has an undergraduate,
graduate, or professional degree
◆ Of the population 15 years of age or older, 96 percent is in the workforce and four
percent is unemployed
◆ Per capita income is nearly $60,000
◆ The population below the federal poverty level is 9.5 percent
◆ Slightly less than six percent of the population does not have health insurance
coverage.
In addition, over the next 15 years the City’s population is projected to increase modestly by 13.5
percent to nearly 130,000.7
Buildings
The City has more than 47,276 housing units and more than 7,100 business occupancies to protect,
including manufacturing, research, technology, office, professional services, retail sales,
restaurants/bars, motels, churches, schools, government facilities, healthcare facilities, and other
non-residential uses.8
Building Occupancy Risk Categories
The CFAI identifies the following four risk categories that relate to building occupancy:
Low Risk – includes detached garages, storage sheds, outbuildings, and similar building
occupancies that pose a relatively low risk of harm to humans or the community if damaged or
destroyed by fire.
Moderate Risk – includes detached single- or two-family dwellings; mobile homes; commercial
and industrial buildings less than 10,000 square feet without a high hazard fire load; aircraft;
railroad facilities; and similar building occupancies where loss of life or property damage is limited
to the single building.
7 Source: City of Carlsbad General Plan, Table 2-8. 8 Source: ESRI Business Summary for the City of Carlsbad (2019 data).
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 88 of 190
High Risk – includes apartment/condominium buildings; commercial and industrial buildings
more than 10,000 square feet without a high hazard fire load; low-occupant load buildings with
high fuel loading or hazardous materials; and similar occupancies with potential for substantial
loss of life or unusual property damage or financial impact.
Maximum Risk – includes buildings or facilities with unusually high risk requiring an Effective
Response Force (ERF) involving a significant augmentation of resources and personnel and where
a fire would pose the potential for a catastrophic event involving large loss of life or significant
economic impact to the community.
Critical Infrastructure / Key Resources
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines critical infrastructure / key resources (CIKR)
as those physical assets essential to the public health and safety, economic vitality, and resilience
of a community, such as lifeline utilities infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure,
essential government services facilities, public safety facilities, schools, hospitals, airports, etc.
The San Diego County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies 237 critical facilities
and infrastructure in the City as summarized in Table 33. A hazard occurrence with significant
impact severity affecting one or more of these facilities would likely adversely impact critical
public or community services.
Table 33—Critical Facilities
Critical Facility Category Number of Facilities
Airport 1
Bridges 33
Communications 2
Electric Power 1
Emergency Services 7
Government Services 5
Hospital 0
Infrastructure (miles) 153
Potable Water 2
Schools 33
Total 237
Source: 2017 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan, Table 4.4-2
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 89 of 190
Economic Resources
The City’s major employers include:
◆ Viasat
◆ Life Technologies
◆ Legoland
◆ Carlsbad Unified School District
◆ Smart Kids Publishing
◆ Omni La Costa Resort and Spa
◆ TaylorMade Golf Company
◆ SGN Nutrition
◆ Gemological Institute of America
◆ City of Carlsbad
Natural Resources
Natural resources within Carlsbad include:
◆ Pacific Ocean coastline
◆ Agua Hedionda
◆ Calavera Lake
◆ Batiquitos Lagoon
◆ San Marcos Creek
◆ Agua Hedionda Creek
◆ Carlsbad Highlands Ecological Reserve
◆ Multiple neighborhood/regional parks
◆ Multiple smaller bodies of water and waterways
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 90 of 190
Cultural/Historic Resources
The City has numerous cultural and historic resources to protect as identified in Envision Carlsbad:
Existing Conditions and Issues Exploration Working Paper 4.9
Special/Unique Resources
Carlsbad also has the following special/unique resources to be protected:
◆ McClellan Palomar Airport
◆ Legoland Theme Park
◆ Biotechnical businesses
A.1.5 Hazard Identification
Citygate utilizes prior risk studies where available, fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the
CFAI, and agency/jurisdiction-specific data and information to identify the hazards to be evaluated
for this study. The 2017 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of
Carlsbad Annex) identifies the following seven hazards likely to impact the City:
1. Coastal storm/erosion
2. Dam failure
3. Earthquake
4. Flood
5. Rain-induced landslide
6. Tsunami
7. Wildfire/structure fire
Although the Fire Department has no legal authority or responsibility to mitigate any of these
hazards other than possibly for wildfire, it does provide services related to each hazard, including
fire suppression, emergency medical services, technical rescue, and hazardous materials response.
The CFAI groups hazards into fire and non-fire categories, as shown in the following figure.
Identification, qualification, and quantification of the various fire and non-fire hazards are
important factors in evaluating how resources are or can be deployed to mitigate those risks.
9 Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, and Dudek Environmental Consultants, “Envision Carlsbad: Existing
Conditions and Issues Exploration, Working Paper 4 – History, the Arts, and Cultural Resources; High Quality Education and Community Services,” www.carlsbadca.gov/envision.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 91 of 190
Figure 20—Commission on Fire Accreditation International Hazard Categories
Source: CFAI Standards of Cover (Fifth Edition).
Subsequent to review and evaluation of the hazards identified in the San Diego County Multi-
jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the CFAI
as they relate to services provided by the Department, Citygate evaluated the following six hazards
for this assessment:
1. Building fire
2. Vegetation/wildland fire
3. Medical emergency
4. Hazardous material release
5. Technical rescue
6. Earthquake
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 92 of 190
A.1.6 Service Capacity
Service capacity refers to the Department’s available response force; the size, types, and condition
of its response fleet and any specialized equipment; core and specialized performance capabilities
and competencies; resource distribution and concentration; availability of automatic or mutual aid;
and any other agency-specific factors influencing its ability to meet current and prospective future
service demand relative to the risks to be protected.
The Department’s service capacity for fire and non-fire risks consists of a daily constant
(minimum/maximum) staffing of 25 firefighting personnel on duty operating five fire engines
(three firefighters each), one ladder truck (three firefighters each), three rescue ambulances (two
paramedic/firefighters each), seasonal lifeguard staffing with a minimum of one Paramedic
Lifeguard, and one Battalion Chief, all operating from the Department’s six fire stations.
All response personnel are trained to the paramedic level, capable of providing Advanced Life
Support (ALS) pre-hospital emergency medical care. Seasonal lifeguards are trained to a Basic
Life Support (BLS) level to render care in conjunction with paramedic personnel.
The engines, ladder truck, and rescue ambulances are staffed with at least one EMT-Paramedic at
all times. Ground paramedic ambulance service is provided by the Department; when needed, air
ambulance services are provided by several different Air Ambulance providers. Emergency room
services are available at Tri-City Medical Center in Oceanside and Scripps Memorial Hospital in
Encinitas. The nearest Level-1 Trauma Centers are Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla and
Palomar Medical Center. The nearest burn center is U.C. San Diego Medical Center in San Diego.
Response personnel are also trained to the U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Material
First Responder Operational level to provide initial hazardous material incident assessment, hazard
isolation, and support for a hazardous material response team.
All response personnel are further trained to the Confined Space Awareness level, and the
Department provides rope, confined space, trench, and swift water rescue services, with personnel
specially trained and certified to provide those technical rescue services.
A.1.7 Probability of Occurrence
Probability of occurrence refers to the probability of a future hazard occurrence during a specific
period. Because the CFAI agency accreditation process requires annual review of an agency’s risk
assessment and baseline performance measures, Citygate recommends using the 12 months
following completion of an SOC study as an appropriate period for the probability of occurrence
evaluation. The following table describes the five probability of occurrence categories and related
scoring criteria used for this analysis.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 93 of 190
Table 34—Probability of Occurrence Scoring Criteria
Score Probable Occurrence Description General Criteria
0–1.0 Very Low Improbable Hazard occurrence is unlikely
1.25–2.0 Low Rare Hazard could occur
2.25–3.0 Moderate Infrequent Hazard should occur infrequently
3.25–4.0 High Likely Hazard likely to occur regularly
4.25–5.0 Very High Frequent Hazard is expected to occur frequently
Citygate’s SOC assessments use recent multiple-year hazard response data to determine the
probability of hazard occurrence for the ensuing 12-month period.
A.1.8 Impact Severity
Impact severity refers to the extent a hazard occurrence impacts people, buildings, lifeline services,
the environment, and the community. The following table describes the five impact severity
categories and related scoring criteria used for this analysis.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 94 of 190
Table 35—Impact Severity Scoring Criteria
Score Impact Severity General Criteria
0–1.0 Insignificant
• Some minor injuries and no fatalities expected • No serious injuries or fatalities • Few persons displaced for only a short duration • None or inconsequential damage • None or very minimal disruption to community • No measurable environmental impacts • Little or no financial loss
1.25–2.0 Minor
• Some minor injuries and no fatalities expected • Some persons displaced for less than 24 hours • Some minor damage • Minor community disruption; no loss of lifeline services • Minimal environmental impacts with no lasting effects • Minor financial loss
2.25–3.0 Moderate
• Some hospitalizations; some fatalities possible • Localized displacement of persons for up to 24 hours • Localized damage • Normal community functioning with some inconvenience • Minor loss of critical lifeline services • Some environmental impacts with no lasting effects, or small environmental impact with long-term effect • Moderate financial loss
3.25–4.0 Major
• Extensive serious injuries; significant number of persons hospitalized • Many fatalities possible • Significant displacement of many people for more than 24 hours • Significant damage requiring external resources • Community services disrupted; some lifeline services potentially unavailable • Some environmental impacts with long-term effects • Major financial loss
4.25–5.0 Catastrophic
• Large number of severe injuries and fatalities
• Local/regional hospitals impacted • Large number of persons displaced for an extended duration
• Extensive damage • Widespread loss of critical lifeline services • Community unable to function without significant support • Significant environmental impacts and/or permanent environmental damage
• Catastrophic financial loss
A.1.9 Overall Risk
Overall hazard risk is determined by multiplying the probability of occurrence score by the impact
severity score. The resultant total determines the overall risk ranking as described in the following
table.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 95 of 190
Table 36—Overall Risk Score and Rating
Overall Risk Score Overall Risk Rating
0–5.99 LOW
6.0–11.99 MODERATE
12.0–19.99 HIGH
20.0–25.0 MAXIMUM
A.1.10 Building Fire Risk
One of the primary hazards in any community is building fire. Building fire risk factors include
building size, age, construction type, density, occupancy, number of stories above ground level,
required fire flow, proximity to other buildings, built-in fire protection/alarm systems, available
fire suppression water supply, building fire service capacity, fire suppression resource deployment
(distribution/concentration), staffing, and response time. Citygate used available data from the Fire
Department, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Insurance Services Office (ISO) to assist in
determining the City’s building fire risk.
The following figure illustrates the building fire progression timeline and shows that flashover,
which is the point at which the entire room erupts into fire after all the combustible objects in that
room reach their ignition temperature, can occur as early as three to five minutes from the initial
ignition. Human survival in a room after flashover is extremely improbable.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 96 of 190
Figure 21—Building Fire Progression Timeline
Source: http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org.
Population Density
Population density within the City ranges from less than 500 to more than 5,000 people per square
mile. Although risk analysis across a wide spectrum of other Citygate clients shows no direct
correlation between population density and building fire occurrence, it is reasonable to conclude
that building fire risk relative to potential impact on human life is greater as population density
increases, particularly in areas with high density, multiple-story buildings.
Water Supply
A reliable public water system providing adequate volume, pressure, and flow duration in close
proximity to all buildings is a critical factor in mitigating the potential impact severity of a
community’s building fire risk. Potable water is provided by the City, and according to Fire
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 97 of 190
Department staff, firefighting water supply is sufficient throughout the City, with no areas of sub-
standard flow or pressure.
Building Fire Service Demand
For the four-year period from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2019, the City experienced
247 building fire incidents comprising 0.49 percent of total service demand over the same period,
as summarized in Table 37.
Table 37—Building Fire Service Demand by Planning Zone
Risk Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent of Total Service Demand Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Building Fire
2016 24 12 5 17 8 3 69 0.57%
2017 20 11 8 9 3 5 56 0.45%
2018 17 12 9 7 5 8 58 0.45%
2019 19 17 5 9 4 10 64 0.48%
Total 80 52 27 42 20 26 247 0.49%
Percent of Total Service Demand 0.55% 0.76% 0.62% 0.55% 0.49% 0.62% 0.49%
As Table 37 illustrates, building fire service demand was consistent across the four-year study
period, with the highest volume of incidents occurring at Station 1 and the lowest at Station 5.
Overall, building fire service demand is low, comprising less than one-half of one percent of all
calls for service, which is similar to other California jurisdictions of similar size and demographics.
Building Fire Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s building fire risk by planning
zone.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 98 of 190
Table 38—Building Fire Risk Assessment by Planning Zone
Building Fire Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Average Annual Incidents 20 13 7 11 5 7
Probability of Occurrence 2.25 2.25 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50
Probable Impact Severity 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Total Risk Score 6.75 6.75 4.50 6.00 4.50 4.50
Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low
A.1.11 Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk
Many areas of the City are susceptible to a vegetation/wildland fire, particularly the mesa and open
space areas with heavy wildland vegetation. Vegetation/wildland fire risk factors include
vegetative fuel types and configuration, weather, topography, prior service demand, water supply,
mitigation measures, and vegetation fire service capacity.
Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) designates wildland Fire
Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) throughout the State based on analysis of multiple wildland fire
hazard factors and modeling of potential wildland fire behavior. For Local Responsibility Areas
(LRA), where a local jurisdiction is responsible for wildland fire protection, including incorporated
cities, CAL FIRE identifies recommended Very High FHSZs as shown in red in Figure 22 for
Carlsbad.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 99 of 190
Figure 22—Very High Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones – City of Carlsbad
Vegetative Fuels
Vegetative fuel factors influencing fire intensity and spread include fuel type (vegetation species),
height, arrangement, density, and moisture. Vegetative fuels within the City, in addition to
decorative landscape species, consist of a mix of annual grasses, weeds, brush, and deciduous,
eucalyptus, and conifer tree species. Once ignited, vegetation fires can burn intensely and
contribute to rapid fire spread under the right fuel, weather, and topographic conditions.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 100 of 190
Weather
Weather elements including temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning also affect
vegetation/wildland fire potential and behavior. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry
out vegetative fuels, creating a situation where fuels will more readily ignite and burn more
intensely. Wind is the most significant weather factor influencing vegetation/wildland fire
behavior with higher wind speeds increasing fire spread and intensity. The City is susceptible to
strong, dry, offshore Santa Ana winds, typically in the late summer and fall, that originate from
cool, dry high-pressure air masses over the Great Basin and create critical wildland fire conditions.
Fuel and weather conditions most conducive to vegetation/wildland fires occur generally from
approximately mid-April through mid-December in San Diego County.
Topography
Vegetation/wildland fires tend to burn more intensely and spread faster when burning uphill and
up-canyon, except for a wind-driven downhill or down-canyon fire. The City’s coastal plain and
rolling highlands terrain influences vegetation/wildland fire behavior and spread.
Water Supply
Another significant vegetation fire impact severity factor is water supply immediately available
for fire suppression. According to Fire Department staff, available fire flow is adequate throughout
the City.
Wildland Fire History
San Diego County has a history of recent large damaging wildland fires as summarized in Table
39.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 101 of 190
Table 39—Recent Large Wildland Fires in San Diego County
Fire Date Acres Burned Buildings Destroyed Buildings Damaged Fatalities
Harmony October 1996 8,600 122 142 1
La Jolla September 1999 7,800 2 2 1
Viejas January 2001 10,353 23 6 0
Gavilan February 2002 6,000 43 13 0
Pines July 2002 61,690 45 121 0
Cedar October 2003 280,278 5,171 63 14
Paradise October 2003 57,000 415 15 2
Otay October 2003 46,291 6 0 0
Roblar October 2003 8,592 0 0 0
Mataguay July 2004 8,867 2 0 0
Horse July 2006 16,681 N/A N/A 0
Witch Creek October 2007 197,990 1,125 77 2
Harris October 2007 90,440 255 12 5
Poomacha October 2007 49,410 139 N/A 0
Ammo October 2007 21,004 N/A N/A 0
Rice October 2007 9,472 208 N/A 0
Bernardo, Poinsettia, and Cocos Fires May 2014 26,900 65 19 0
Source: 2017 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Table 4.3-3
Vegetation/Wildland Fire Hazard Mitigation
Hazard mitigation refers to specific actions or measures taken to prevent a hazard from occurring
and/or to minimize the severity of impacts resulting from a hazard occurrence. While none of the
hazards subject to this study can be entirely prevented, measures can be taken to minimize the
impacts when those hazards do occur. The City and Fire Department Fire Prevention Division, in
addition to requiring fire resistive construction materials and methods in designated High Fire
Hazard Areas, requires defensible space be maintained by property owners in those areas, has an
annual weed abatement program, and investigates all fire hazard complaints and takes appropriate
actions as authorized by City ordinances and regulations to eliminate or mitigate identified fire
hazards.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 102 of 190
Vegetation/Wildland Fire Service Demand
The City experienced 52 vegetation/wildland fires over the four-year study period, comprising
0.10 percent of total service demand over the same period, as summarized in Table 40.
Table 40—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Service Demand by Planning Zone
Risk Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent of Total Service Demand Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Vegetation/Wildland Fire
2016 1 0 4 2 2 1 10 0.08%
2017 4 0 4 2 2 0 12 0.10%
2018 7 2 2 3 8 0 22 0.17%
2019 2 1 1 2 2 0 8 0.06%
Total 14 3 11 9 14 1 52 0.10%
Percent of Total Service Demand 0.10% 0.04% 0.25% 0.12% 0.34% 0.02% 0.10%
As Table 40 shows, vegetation/wildland fire service demand was fairly consistent over the four-
year study period, with the highest occurrence at Stations 1 and 5 and the lowest occurrence at
Station 6. Overall, vegetation/wildland fire service demand is very low.
Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk Assessment
Table 41 summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s wildland fire risk by planning zone.
Table 41—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk Assessment by Planning Zone
Vegetation/Wildland Fire Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Average Annual Incidents 4 1 3 2 4 0
Probability of Occurrence 1.25 1.00 1.75 1.25 1.75 1.75
Probable Impact Severity 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.50
Total Risk Score 3.75 3.00 6.13 3.75 6.13 6.13
Overall Risk Rating Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate
A.1.12 Medical Emergency Risk
Medical emergency risk in most communities is predominantly a function of population density,
demographics, violence, health insurance coverage, and vehicle traffic.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 103 of 190
Medical emergency risk can also be categorized as either a medical emergency resulting from a
traumatic injury or a health-related condition or event. Cardiac arrest is one serious medical
emergency among many where there is an interruption or blockage of oxygen to the brain.
The following figure illustrates the reduced survivability of a cardiac arrest victim as time to
defibrillation increases. While early defibrillation is one factor in cardiac arrest survivability, other
factors can influence survivability as well, such as early CPR and pre-hospital advanced life
support interventions.
Figure 23—Survival Rate versus Time to Defibrillation
Source: www.suddencardiacarrest.org.
Population Density
Carlsbad’s population density ranges from less than 500 to more than 5,000 people per square
mile. Risk analysis across a wide spectrum of other Citygate clients shows a direct correlation
between population density and the occurrence of medical emergencies, particularly in high urban
population density zones.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 104 of 190
Demographics
Medical emergency risk tends to be higher among older, poorer, less educated, and uninsured
populations. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 18 percent of the City’s population is
65 and older; 9.5 percent of the population is at or below poverty level; only 4 percent of the
population over 24 years of age has less than a high school education or equivalent; and 5.9 percent
of the population does not have health insurance coverage.10
Vehicle Traffic
Medical emergency risk tends to be higher in those areas of a community with high daily vehicle
traffic volume, particularly those areas with high traffic volume traveling at high speeds. The
City’s transportation network includes Interstate 5, which has an annual average daily traffic
volume of more than 229,000 vehicles, with a peak-hour load of nearly 16,000 vehicles.11
Medical Emergency Service Demand
Medical emergency service demand over the four-year study period includes more than 28,000
calls for service comprising nearly 56 percent of total service demand over the same period, as
summarized in Table 42.
Table 42—Medical Emergency Service Demand by Planning Zone
Risk Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent of Total Service Demand Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Medical Emergency
2016 2,474 1,066 693 1,211 565 665 6,674 54.78%
2017 2,635 1,165 772 1,310 627 687 7,196 57.48%
2018 2,679 1,266 693 1,252 658 720 7,268 56.64%
2019 2,555 1,306 765 1,335 661 673 7,295 54.73%
Total 10,343 4,803 2,923 5,108 2,511 2,745 28,433 55.90%
Percent of Total Service Demand 71.33% 70.45% 67.23% 67.44% 61.04% 65.51% 55.90%
As Table 42 shows, medical emergency service demand varies significantly by planning zone and
increased over 9 percent over the past four years. Overall, the City’s medical emergency service
demand is typical of other jurisdictions with similar demographics.
10 Source: ESRI and U. S. Census Bureau. 11 Source: California Department of Transportation (2018).
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 105 of 190
Medical Emergency Risk Assessment
Table 43 summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s medical emergency risk by planning
zone.
Table 43—Medical Emergency Risk Assessment by Planning Zone
Medical Emergency
Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Average Annual Incidents 2,586 1,201 731 1,277 628 686
Probability of Occurrence 5.00 5.00 4.50 5.00 4.50 4.50
Probable Impact Severity 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75
Total Risk Score 13.75 13.75 12.38 13.75 12.38 12.38
Overall Risk Rating High High High High High High
A.1.13 Hazardous Material Risk
Hazardous material risk factors include fixed facilities that store, use, or produce hazardous
chemicals or waste; underground pipelines conveying hazardous materials; aviation, railroad,
maritime, and vehicle transportation of hazardous commodities into or through a jurisdiction;
vulnerable populations; emergency evacuation planning and related training; and specialized
hazardous material service capacity.
Fixed Hazardous Materials Facilities
The Department identified 489 facilities within the City requiring a State or County hazardous
material operating permit or a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. High-pressure natural gas
distribution pipelines are also located in the western and southern areas of the City.
Transportation-Related Hazardous Materials
The City also has transportation-related hazardous material risk as a result of its road transportation
network, including Interstate 5 with heavy daily truck traffic volume as summarized in Table 44,
many of which transport hazardous commodities.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 106 of 190
Table 44—Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic
Highway Crossing AADT1
Truck AADT by Axles % Truck AADT by Axles
2 3 4 5+ 2 3 4 5+
I-5 Leucadia Blvd. 12,033 6,425 761 281 4,566 53.39% 6.32% 2.34% 37.95%
1 Source: CalTrans Truck Traffic Data (2017)
AADT = Average annual daily trips
The City also has transportation-related hazardous material risk due to the approximately 60 train
movements daily into and through the City, many of which also transport hazardous
commodities.12
Population Density
Because hazardous material emergencies have the potential to adversely impact human health, it
is logical that the higher the population density, the greater the potential population exposed to a
hazardous material release or spill. The population density in Carlsbad ranges from less than 500
to more than 5,000 people per square mile.
Vulnerable Populations
Persons vulnerable to a hazardous material release/spill include those individuals or groups unable
to self-evacuate, generally including children under the age of 10, the elderly, and persons confined
to an institution or other setting where they are unable to leave voluntarily. As shown in Table 32,
slightly more than 29 percent of the City’s population is under age 10 or is 65 years of age and
older.
Emergency Evacuation Planning, Training, Implementation, and Effectiveness
Another significant hazardous material impact severity factor is a jurisdiction’s shelter-in-place /
emergency evacuation planning and training. In the event of a hazardous material release or spill,
time can be a critical factor in notifying potentially affected persons, particularly at-risk
populations, to either shelter-in-place or evacuate to a safe location. Essential to this process is an
effective emergency plan that incorporates one or more mass emergency notification capabilities,
as well as pre-established evacuation procedures. It is also essential to conduct regular, periodic
exercises involving these two emergency plan elements to evaluate readiness and to identify and
remediate any planning or training gaps to ensure ongoing emergency incident readiness and
effectiveness.
12 Source: Federal Railroad Administration (2020 data).
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 107 of 190
Although the City does not have a formal emergency evacuation plan, it is a participating partner
in AlertSanDiego, a free subscription and reverse 9-1-1 mass emergency notification system that
can provide emergency alerts, notifications, and other emergency information to email accounts,
cell phones, smartphones, tablets, and landline telephones. Within Carlsbad, emergency
notifications can be initiated by designated Fire, Police, or Emergency Management personnel.
The City also conducts regular Emergency Operations Center training.
Hazardous Material Service Demand
The City experienced 172 hazardous material incidents over the four-year study period, comprising
0.34 percent of total service demand over the same period, as summarized in Table 45.
Table 45—Hazardous Material Service Demand by Planning Zone
Risk Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent of Total Service Demand Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Hazardous Materials
2016 14 3 8 6 10 4 45 0.37%
2017 9 5 4 5 9 4 36 0.29%
2018 19 5 5 10 9 3 51 0.40%
2019 12 5 5 7 5 6 40 0.30%
Total 54 18 22 28 33 17 172 0.34%
Percent of Total Service Demand 0.37% 0.26% 0.51% 0.37% 0.80% 0.41% 0.34%
As Table 45 illustrates, hazardous material service demand varies by planning zone and was
relatively consistent over the past four years, with Station 1 having the highest demand and Station
6 the lowest. Overall, the City’s hazardous material service demand is very low.
Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment
Table 46 summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s hazardous materials risk by planning
zone.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 108 of 190
Table 46—Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment by Planning Zone
Hazardous Materials Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Average Annual Incidents 14 5 6 7 8 4
Probability of Occurrence 2.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.25
Probable Impact Severity 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.50
Total Risk Score 6.75 3.125 4.50 3.75 6.00 3.125
Overall Risk Rating Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low
A.1.14 Technical Rescue Risk
Technical rescue risk factors include active construction projects; structural collapse potential;
confined spaces, such as tanks and underground vaults; bodies of water, including rivers and
streams; industrial machinery use; transportation volume; and earthquake, flood, and landslide
potential.
Construction Activity
There is ongoing residential, commercial, industrial, and infrastructure construction activity
occurring within Carlsbad.
Confined Spaces
There are multiple confined spaces within the City, including tanks, vaults, open trenches, etc.
Bodies of Water
There are multiple bodies of water within the City, including the Pacific Ocean, Agua Hedionda,
Calavera Lake, Batiquitos Lagoon, San Marcos Creek, Agua Hedionda Creek, and multiple
smaller bodies of water and waterways.
Transportation Volume
Another technical rescue risk factor is transportation-related incidents requiring technical rescue.
This risk factor is primarily a function of vehicle, railway, maritime, and aviation traffic, with
vehicle traffic the primary factor for Carlsbad, with Interstate 5 carrying more than 229,000
vehicles daily and a peak-hour load of nearly 16,000 vehicles.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 109 of 190
Earthquake Risk13
Several major active faults exist in San Diego County, including the Rose Canyon, Newport-
Inglewood, La Nacion, Elsinore, San Jacinto, Coronado Bank, and San Clemente Fault Zones. The
Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be the greatest potential threat to San Diego as a region due to
its proximity to areas of high population. The San Jacinto Fault is also a branch of the San Andreas
Fault System and is the most active large fault within the County of San Diego.
The strongest recently recorded earthquake in San Diego County was a magnitude 5.3 earthquake
that occurred on July 13, 1986, on the Coronado Bank Fault, 25 miles west of Solana Beach. In
recent years there have been several moderate earthquakes recorded within the Rose Canyon Fault
Zone as it passes beneath the City of San Diego. Three temblors shook the City on June 17, 1985
(M 3.9, M 4.0, and M 3.9), and a stronger quake occurred on October 28, 1986 (M 4.7). The most
recent significant earthquake activity occurred on June 15, 2004, with an M 5.3 on the San Diego
Trough Fault Zone approximately 50 miles southwest of San Diego.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) created the Estimated Annualized
Earthquake Losses for the United States report that identifies risk and consequences for specific
areas in the country susceptible to earthquakes. The report identifies the San Diego–Carlsbad area
as very susceptible to major earthquakes and significant damage as a result. Figure 24 shows
probable Peak Ground Acceleration from a seismic event in San Diego County.
13 Reference: 2017 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Section 4.3.4.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 110 of 190
Figure 24—Probable Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) – San Diego County
Given the proximity of several earthquake faults to Carlsbad, and the likely potential for a
significant earthquake in the San Diego region, Citygate was asked to specifically evaluate
earthquake risk for the City, which is summarized in Table 47.14
Table 47—Earthquake Risk Assessment by Planning Zone
Earthquake
Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Probability of Occurrence 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
Probable Impact Severity 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50
Total Risk Score 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13
Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
14 Reference: 2017 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Section 4.3.4.3.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 111 of 190
Flood Risk15
Average annual precipitation in San Diego County ranges from 10 inches on the coast to
approximately 45 inches on the highest point of the Peninsular Mountain Range that transects the
County to 3 inches in the desert east of the mountains. The areas surrounding the river valleys in
San Diego County are susceptible to flooding due to the wide, flat floodplains surrounding the
riverbeds. The western watershed of the County extends about 80 miles north from the Mexican
border and approximately 45 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. From west to east, there are about
10 miles of rolling, broken coastal plain, 10 to 15 miles of foothill ranges with elevations of 600
to 1,700 feet; and approximately 20 miles of mountain country where elevations range from 3,000
to 6,000 feet. This western watershed constitutes about 75 percent of the County, with the
remaining 25 percent consisting mainly of desert country. There are over 3,600 miles of rivers and
streams that threaten residents and over 200,000 acres of flood-prone property. Figure 25 shows
the flood hazard areas of the County, as identified by FEMA.
Figure 25—Flood Hazard Areas
15 Reference: 2017 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Section 4.3.5.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 112 of 190
As Figure 25 illustrates, high hazard (100-year floodway) zones in San Diego County are generally
concentrated within the coastal areas, including several areas of Carlsbad near natural creek
crossings, channels, coastal areas, and lagoons.
Cliff Rescues
With Carlsbad being a coastal community, it has the typical geographical features of high, flat-
faced, and very vertical walls. Beach access is limited due to geography and infrastructure. This
limited access drives people to look for alternative access points that sometimes lead to traversing
the slopes and can lead to technical rescues in steep terrain. These activities, albeit very infrequent,
require responses from the Department and its regional partners.
The risk area runs along the coast and Interstate 5, where access to the beaches and Pacific Ocean
draw large crowds to surf, swim, and enjoy the beaches.
Technical Rescue Service Demand
Over the four-year study period, there were 83 technical rescue incidents comprising 0.16 percent
of total service demand for the same period, as summarized in Table 48.
Table 48—Technical Rescue Service Demand by Planning Zone
Risk Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent of Total Service Demand Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Technical Rescue
2016 5 0 1 2 3 0 11 0.09%
2017 4 2 3 2 1 1 13 0.10%
2018 4 2 2 14 2 0 24 0.19%
2019 11 7 1 11 5 0 35 0.26%
Total 24 11 7 29 11 1 83 0.16%
Percent of Total Service Demand 0.17% 0.16% 0.16% 0.38% 0.27% 0.02% 0.16%
As Table 48 shows, technical rescue service demand is very low, with Station 4 experiencing the
highest demand.
Technical Rescue Risk Assessment
Table 49 summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the City’s technical rescue risk by planning zone.
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 113 of 190
Table 49—Technical Rescue Risk Assessment by Planning Zone
Technical Rescue Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
Average Annual Incidents 6 3 2 7 3 0
Probability of Occurrence 2.25 1.25 1.00 2.25 1.25 1.00
Probable Impact Severity 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.50 2.50
Total Risk Score 6.20 3.13 2.50 6.20 3.13 2.50
Overall Risk Rating Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 114 of 190
.. r·1 .. CITYGftTf ftSS~ClftTfS, LLC
•• PUB LI C SAFETY SERV I CES
STANDARDS OF COVERAGE STUDY
AND AMBULANCE OPERATIONS
ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2 OF 2: MAP ATLAS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MAY 13, 2020
··n --CITYGftTf ftSS~ClftTfS, llC
CELEBRATING 30 YEARS! 1990 I 2020
WWW.CITYGATEASSOCIATES.COM
600 COOLIDGE DR., STE.150 PHONE: (916) 458-5100
FOLSOM, CA 95630 FAX: (916) 983-2090
{city of
Carlsbad
Califo r nia May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 115 of 190
STANDARDS OF COVERAGE
STUDY AND AMBULANCE
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING | MAY 19, 2020
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Exhibit 2May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 138 of 190
2
•There are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the
level of fire service staffing, response times, or outcomes. Thus,
communities have the level of fire services they choose to
“purchase” and can afford.
•The body of regulations on fire services state that if fire services are
provided at all, it must be with the safety of the firefighters and
citizens in mind.
•Deployment is about the speed and weight of the response:
‒Speed = single neighborhood-based units
‒Weight = multiple units amassing quickly enough to stop serious
fires
Fire Service Delivery Policy Choices
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 139 of 190
3
•Time-temperature curve in building fires
•EMS survivability in full arrest
•Suppress other outdoor fires before they spread to
buildings and wildland areas
•Keep small fires small
•Save people with potentially fatal medical emergencies
•This study addresses response time goals for fire and
EMS, hazardous materials, and technical rescue incidents
•Policy goal –Provide adequate response times to all
similar risk and population density neighborhoods
Setting Service Level Goals
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 140 of 190
4
•Hazards evaluated
1.Building fire
2.Vegetation/wildland fire
3.Medical emergency
4.Hazardous material release
5.Technical rescue
6.Earthquake
Risk Assessment
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 141 of 190
5
•Population density
•Building density
•Critical facilities
•High needed fire flow
sites
•Service capacity
•CUPA permit sites
•Vehicle traffic volume
•Hazard mitigation
Impact Severity Factors
•Population demographics
•High-risk occupancies
•Economic resources
•Natural resources
•Cultural resources
•Water supply
•Historic service demand
•Response performance
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 142 of 190
6
Risk Assessment –Overall Risk Ratings by Hazard
Hazard
Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
1 Building Fire Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low
2 Vegetation/Wildland Fire Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate
3 Medical Emergency High High High High High High
4 Hazardous Materials Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low
5 Technical Rescue Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low
6 Earthquake Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 143 of 190
77
Service Demand
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 144 of 190
8
Service Demand by Year by Incident Type
Nlumber of lnc.idents by Year by lnc.ident Type
9.,000 ----------------------------
8.,000 ----------
7.,000 +----
V) 6.,000 +----.....,
ffi 5.,000 +----
""O ·u 4.,ooo +----
c:
1--1 3.,000 ---
2.,000 ---
1.,000 ---
0 .Lliiiiiiiiiii
2016 20 17
■ Fires ■ EMS Other
20 18 2019
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 145 of 190
10
Service Demand by Hour of Day
Number of Incidents by Hour of Day· by Year
900 --------------------------------
800 r===========J~~~~~~~~~~:====== 700
~ 600 +-----------~;...__ ___________ ____..~-----
~ 500 +-------------M'--------------------l~lair---
""O •u 4oo
~ 300 ~~1:s;;;;:------::::177----------------------..:ie-2oo t---~~~~~:..__ ___________________ _
100 -----------------------------
0 ..........,_-...--------.-------r-..----------------------------..---~-----.-------T"-...--------00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
IHour of Day
♦ 2016 • 20 '7 • 20 .8 • 20 9
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 147 of 190
11
•1 or more simultaneous incidents 58.07%
•2 or more simultaneous incidents 23.69%
•3 or more simultaneous incidents 7.49%
Simultaneous Incident Activity
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 148 of 190
13
Ambulance Unit-Hour Utilization –2019
•UHU is the % of time
per hour that a unit is
assigned to an active
9-1-1 incident
•Upper desirable
workload limit is 30%
hour after hour for
long periods
Hour RA101 RA102 RA103
00:00 17.74%12.75%5.35%
01:00 14.94%12.36%6.25%
02:00 18.05%11.16%4.80%
03:00 9.86%10.98%5.52%
04:00 12.04%8.12%5.06%
05:00 12.32%14.13%6.22%
06:00 17.84%14.80%9.05%
07:00 20.72%22.74%10.53%
08:00 28.67%26.43%17.83%
09:00 24.82%27.04%25.04%
10:00 24.46%30.23%25.26%
11:00 25.15%27.76%25.21%
12:00 26.53%30.83%23.33%
13:00 31.90%28.89%24.63%
14:00 28.78%29.55%24.30%
15:00 24.35%26.87%24.42%
16:00 32.66%23.98%25.30%
17:00 29.53%26.28%20.89%
18:00 25.39%27.96%21.34%
19:00 22.27%20.98%16.97%
20:00 21.05%24.20%13.71%
21:00 20.50%22.66%13.13%
22:00 20.07%17.12%10.58%
23:00 15.31%13.11%7.90%
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 150 of 190
14
Response Performance
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 151 of 190
15
Current Deployment Goals
Carlsbad Fire
•First-due unit on scene in 6:00 minutes or less
from the time of crew dispatch, 90% of the time
Best Practices
Dispatch:1:30 (NFPA 1221)
Turnout Time:2:00 (Citygate)
Travel Time:4:00 to 8:00 (NFPA)
Total Response:7:30 to 11:30 (NFPA/Citygate)
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 152 of 190
16
Response Performance
Response Component 2019 Goal
Dispatch Process 1:08 1:30
Crew Turnout 1:59 2:00
First-Due Unit Travel 6:43 4:00
Dispatch to Arrival (Current Goal)8:01 6:00
9-1-1 Received to First-Due Unit Arrival 8:51 7:30
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 153 of 190
17
90% Travel Time By Station Area
•Data shown is any unit arriving first in a station district
Travel Duration Station
CB1
Station
CB2
Station
CB3
Station
CB4
Station
CB5
Station
CB6
Travel at 6 Minutes 88.10%86.00%82.70%77.30%78.10%73.70%
Travel at 6:15 89.30%88.30%86.00%80.50%83.00%79.40%
Travel at 6:30 91.00%90.20%88.30%83.40%85.80%83.80%
Travel at 6:45 92.80%92.00%90.60%86.20%88.90%86.50%
Travel at 7 Minutes 93.80%93.20%92.50%88.10%92.00%88.80%
Travel at 7:15 94.60%93.70%93.70%89.20%95.10%91.70%
Travel at 7:30 95.60%93.90%94.50%90.60%96.00%93.20%
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 154 of 190
18
Travel Time Erosion –Minutes at 90% by Year
Year Time
2013 6:16
2014 6:19
2015 6:22
2016 6:28
2017 6:35
2018 6:45
2019 6:43
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 155 of 190
19
2013–2019 Straight-Line Travel Time Increase
Department-Wide and by Station With 2030 Forecast
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
2013 2019
Department-Wide
Station CB1
Station CB2
Station CB3
Station CB4
Station CB5
Station CB6
Linear (Department-Wide)
2030
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 156 of 190
20
2013–2019 Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and
by Station With Linear Department-Wide Forecast
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2030
Department-Wide
Station CB1
Station CB2
Station CB3
Station CB4
Station CB5
Station CB6
Linear (Department-Wide)
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 157 of 190
21
Incidents Reached –Total Response Time
Accumulation
7:30
Actual 8:51
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 158 of 190
2222
Current Deployment Coverage Maps
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 159 of 190
29
•Fire unit travel times are longer than desired
due to terrain, the road network, and traffic
congestion
•Call processing time and crew turnout times
are excellent
•Call to arrival time, at 8:51 minutes, is
significantly past a best practices mark of 7:30
minutes
Deployment Findings
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 166 of 190
30
•Ambulance capacity is saturated at peak hours
•Simultaneous incidents are a problem in
Station 1’s service area
•Response time and ambulance capacity can
only be improved with added units, at more
than one location
•EMS growth, infill development, and traffic
congestion have overcome a 6-station model
if positive outcomes are the goal
Deployment Findings (cont.)
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 167 of 190
31
Deployment Changes Historical Perspective
Year Event Population
Number
of EMS
Incidents
EMS Incidents per
1,000 Resident
Population
1990 Fire Station/Engine 6 opened
in mid-1989 63,388 2,246 35/1,000
2006 Third ambulance was added
full-time in 2006 92,753 5,040 54/1,000
2019 EMS workload analysis for
Citygate SOC study 114,420 8,722*76/1,000
Percentage Increase (1990 to 2019)81%288%117%
*8,600 was projected for 2024 in 2006 analysis
•It has been 31 years since adding a fire engine and 14 years
since adding an ambulance, despite significant EMS incident
growth
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 168 of 190
3232
Deployment Coverage Improvement
Options
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 169 of 190
4040
Ambulance Service and Economics
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 177 of 190
41
•Two-paramedic/firefighter ambulance model
is more expensive; it was designed for another
era with far fewer, mostly serious patients
•Many systems have moved to a staffing model
of one paramedic/firefighter and one non-
sworn EMT
•If Carlsbad shifted to an EMT model, the
added personnel would be non-sworn,
CalPERS PEPRA members
Ambulance Staffing Options
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 178 of 190
42
•5 –North County systems staff one
firefighter/paramedic on most or all
ambulances
•2 –Systems use two firefighter/paramedics on
all ambulances
•1 –One of the above also uses supplemental
two-EMT basic ambulances for low acuity
transports
Ambulance Staffing in North County
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 179 of 190
43
Transport Revenue Sources
54%
15%
8%
23%
Medicare Medi-Cal Uninsured and Unknown Private Insurance
Medicare
Medi-Cal
Private Insurance
Uninsured
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 180 of 190
44
Transport Revenues
Revenue Amount
FY 18/19 Gross Revenue $5,934,344
FY 18/19 Net Revenue $2,499,395
FY 19/20 Estimated Net Revenue1 $2,761,000
FY 18/19 Revenue Summary and FY 19/20 Revenue Estimate
Revenue Amount
Supplemental government revenue projections $169,000
Additional net revenue from non-mutual-aid transports $240,043
Total $409,043
FY 20/21 Projected Additional Revenues
1 Does not include unknowns due to the spring 2020 COVID-19 pandemic
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 181 of 190
45
Recommendations and Next Steps
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 182 of 190
46
•Add ambulance capacity soon 24/7/365
•Engage the workforce and move to a staffing
model of one paramedic/firefighter and one
EMT
•Conduct an ambulance rate review in 2020
and maximize recovery from public and
private insurers, not out-of-pocket payors
Enhance Ambulance Service
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 183 of 190
47
•To control travel times and lower them in the northwest quadrant, add a seventh station on the coast south of the Village –use freed up
paramedic/firefighters for ambulance staffing
conversion to one paramedic/firefighter and one EMT
•Move the ladder truck/quint to Station 7
•Staff an engine company at Station 5
•Plan for two more stations at location #8 and a 9th in south La Costa
–Staff these stations with two-firefighter Fast Response Units for rapid EMS first response and first aid firefighting pending the arrival of the nearest engine
Long-Term –Enhance Fire Crew/Unit Coverage
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 184 of 190
48
Pre COVID-19 Long-Term Staffing Options / Personnel Costs
Add 4th Rescue Ambulance (RA) and Station 7
•Total FY 19/20 Fire operating budget is $25,724,746, so fourth ambulance and
seventh engine is a 6% increase
•Traditional fourth ambulance cost is approximately 56% of the ambulance and
engine cost
Deployment Change
PM/FFs That
Become
Available
Staff Needed
Per Shift
Total Staff
Needed for 3
Shifts
Total Added
Compensation
Add 4th RA Using Current Staffing (2 PM/FFs)
Add 2 PM/FFs to the 4th RA 0 2 PM/FF 6 PM/FF $880,038
Add 4th RA Using Modified Staffing (1 PM/FF and 1 EMT) and Add 7th Engine
Add 1 EMT on all 4 RAs and remove 1
PM/FF from existing 3 RAs 9 PM/FF 4 EMT 12 EMT
$1,561,797Add 1 PM/FF to the 4th RA 0 1 PM/FF 3 PM/FF
Add 7th engine 6 FTE 3 FTE 3 FTE
Add Station 8 and 9 with Fast Response Units
Add 2 Fast Response Units (one per
station)-4 FTE 12 FTE Future
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 185 of 190
49
COVID-19 Impact Staffing Option / Personnel Costs
Add 2 Rescue Ambulances Soon, Delay Station 7
Deployment Change
PM/FFs That
Become
Available
Staff
Needed Per
Shift
Total Staff
Needed for
3 Shifts
Total Added
Compensation
Add 1 EMT on all 5 RAs and
remove 1 PM/FF from existing 3
RAs
9 PM/FF 5 EMT 15 EMT $1,265,130
Add 1 PM/FF to the 4th and 5th RA 0 2 PM/FF 6 PM/FF 0
Move 4th PM/FF to ladder truck 0 1 PM/FF 3 PM/FF 0
Subtract the revenue increase of $409,043 from adding two
RAs to partially offset added personnel costs
Net
Increase:$856,087
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 186 of 190
50
•Distribution of Fire Stations:To treat pre-
hospital medical emergencies and control
small fires, the first-due unit should arrive
within 7:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time
from the receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North
Comm. This equates to a 90-second dispatch
time, a 2:00-minute company turnout time,
and a 4:00-minute travel time.
Adopt a First-Due Unit Response Time
Policy
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 187 of 190
51
•To confine building fires near the room of
origin, keep vegetation fires under five acres
in size, extricate trapped victims within 30:00
minutes, and treat multiple medical patients
at a single incident, a multiple-unit ERF should
arrive within 11:30 minutes, 90 percent of the
time from the receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North Comm. This equates to a 90-second dispatch
time, 2:00-minute company turnout time, and 8:00-minute travel time.
Adopt a Multiple-Unit (First Alarm)
Response Time Policy
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 188 of 190
52
•Review and absorb the content, findings, and
recommendations of this report
•Consider adopting response performance goals at
a future meeting, as recommended in this report
•Conduct an ambulance rate review in 2020
•Ask staff to return with an implementation plan
for this study’s operational and Capital
Improvement Budget recommendations with
funding priorities over several fiscal years.
Next Steps
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 189 of 190
53
Discussion
May 19, 2020 Item #10 Page 190 of 190
STANDARDS OF COVERAGE
STUDY AND AMBULANCE
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING | MAY 19, 2020
CITY OF CARLSBAD
.. r·1 .. CITY<Jftlt ftSS~ClftTtS, llC
• • PUBL I C SAFETY SERV I CES
2
•There are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the
level of fire service staffing, response times, or outcomes. Thus,
communities have the level of fire services they choose to
“purchase” and can afford.
•The body of regulations on fire services state that if fire services are
provided at all, it must be with the safety of the firefighters and
citizens in mind.
•Deployment is about the speed and weight of the response:
‒Speed = single neighborhood-based units
‒Weight = multiple units amassing quickly enough to stop serious
fires
Fire Service Delivery Policy Choices
3
•Time-temperature curve in building fires
•EMS survivability in full arrest
•Suppress other outdoor fires before they spread to
buildings and wildland areas
•Keep small fires small
•Save people with potentially fatal medical emergencies
•This study addresses response time goals for fire and
EMS, hazardous materials, and technical rescue incidents
•Policy goal –Provide adequate response times to all
similar risk and population density neighborhoods
Setting Service Level Goals
4
•Hazards evaluated
1.Building fire
2.Vegetation/wildland fire
3.Medical emergency
4.Hazardous material release
5.Technical rescue
6.Earthquake
Risk Assessment
5
•Population density
•Building density
•Critical facilities
•High needed fire flow
sites
•Service capacity
•CUPA permit sites
•Vehicle traffic volume
•Hazard mitigation
Impact Severity Factors
•Population demographics
•High-risk occupancies
•Economic resources
•Natural resources
•Cultural resources
•Water supply
•Historic service demand
•Response performance
6
Risk Assessment –Overall Risk Ratings by Hazard
Hazard
Planning Zone
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 3 Sta. 4 Sta. 5 Sta. 6
1 Building Fire Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low
2 Vegetation/Wildland Fire Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate
3 Medical Emergency High High High High High High
4 Hazardous Materials Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low
5 Technical Rescue Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low
6 Earthquake Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
77
Service Demand
8
Service Demand by Year by Incident Type
Nu,mber of lnc.idents by· Year by lnc.ident Type
9,000 ~---------------------------
8,000 ---
7,000 +----
oo 61000 ---
-1,..,1
C: (]) 51000
""C ·u 4.,ooo
C: ......,. 3.,000 +----
2.,000 +----
1.,000 ---
0 l...liiiiiiiiiil
2016 20 17 2018 20 19
■ Fire s ■ EMS Other
9
Service Demand by Station –2016–2019
Nu,mber of lnc.idents by Station
161000 ~---------------------------
141000
12,000
~ 10,000
C:
~ 8,000 ·-u
C: 6,000 ~
4,000
2.,000
0 CBl CB2 CB3 CB4 CBS CB6
Station
10
Service Demand by Hour of Day
Number of Incidents by Hour of Day by Vea,r 900 --------------------------------800 r===========~~~~~~z:!~~~~~t======= 700
J!_l 600 +--------------+ ~-----------______;: ~r------
~ 500 +----------~;....._--------------.-.-:;; ------
:U 400 +-------------,f~-----------------~~-u ..5 300 +--ili!I~ II::"" ____ ......,.'#"--____________________ ___
200 +----=~~~~{__ _________________ _
100 ------------------------------
o-----------------------------------------------00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Hour of Day
♦ 20 6 • 20 7 • 20 8 • 2019
11
•1 or more simultaneous incidents 58.07%
•2 or more simultaneous incidents 23.69%
•3 or more simultaneous incidents 7.49%
Simultaneous Incident Activity
Number of Simultaneous Incidents by Year
8,000 ~----------------------------
7,000 -
6,000 -
5,000 +---
4,000 -
3,000 -
2,000 -
1,000 -
0 ---
20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19
12
Simultaneous Incident by Station Area
800
700
600
lfl .._. 500
C:
~400 ·-u c:300
~
200
100
0
Number of lnc.idents by Station by Year
-.. -r-
1
I
I
I
I I
CBl CB2 CB3 CB4 CBS
Station
■ 20 6 ■ 2017 ■ 2018 20 9
CB6
13
Ambulance Unit-Hour Utilization –2019
•UHU is the % of time
per hour that a unit is
assigned to an active
9-1-1 incident
•Upper desirable
workload limit is 30%
hour after hour for
long periods
Hour RA101 RA102 RA103
00:00 17.74%12.75%5.35%
01:00 14.94%12.36%6.25%
02:00 18.05%11.16%4.80%
03:00 9.86%10.98%5.52%
04:00 12.04%8.12%5.06%
05:00 12.32%14.13%6.22%
06:00 17.84%14.80%9.05%
07:00 20.72%22.74%10.53%
08:00 28.67%26.43%17.83%
09:00 24.82%27.04%25.04%
10:00 24.46%30.23%25.26%
11:00 25.15%27.76%25.21%
12:00 26.53%30.83%23.33%
13:00 31.90%28.89%24.63%
14:00 28.78%29.55%24.30%
15:00 24.35%26.87%24.42%
16:00 32.66%23.98%25.30%
17:00 29.53%26.28%20.89%
18:00 25.39%27.96%21.34%
19:00 22.27%20.98%16.97%
20:00 21.05%24.20%13.71%
21:00 20.50%22.66%13.13%
22:00 20.07%17.12%10.58%
23:00 15.31%13.11%7.90%
14
Response Performance
15
Current Deployment Goals
Carlsbad Fire
•First-due unit on scene in 6:00 minutes or less
from the time of crew dispatch, 90% of the time
Best Practices
Dispatch:1:30 (NFPA 1221)
Turnout Time:2:00 (Citygate)
Travel Time:4:00 to 8:00 (NFPA)
Total Response: 7:30 to 11:30 (NFPA/Citygate)
16
Response Performance
Response Component 2019 Goal
Dispatch Process 1:08 1:30
Crew Turnout 1:59 2:00
First-Due Unit Travel 6:43 4:00
Dispatch to Arrival (Current Goal)8:01 6:00
9-1-1 Received to First-Due Unit Arrival 8:51 7:30
17
90% Travel Time By Station Area
•Data shown is any unit arriving first in a station district
Travel Duration Station
CB1
Station
CB2
Station
CB3
Station
CB4
Station
CB5
Station
CB6
Travel at 6 Minutes 88.10%86.00%82.70%77.30%78.10%73.70%
Travel at 6:15 89.30%88.30%86.00%80.50%83.00%79.40%
Travel at 6:30 91.00%90.20%88.30%83.40%85.80%83.80%
Travel at 6:45 92.80%92.00%90.60%86.20%88.90%86.50%
Travel at 7 Minutes 93.80%93.20%92.50%88.10%92.00%88.80%
Travel at 7:15 94.60%93.70%93.70%89.20%95.10%91.70%
Travel at 7:30 95.60%93.90%94.50%90.60%96.00%93.20%
18
Travel Time Erosion –Minutes at 90% by Year
Year Time
2013 6:16
2014 6:19
2015 6:22
2016 6:28
2017 6:35
2018 6:45
2019 6:43
19
2013–2019 Straight-Line Travel Time Increase
Department-Wide and by Station With 2030 Forecast
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
2013 2019
Department-Wide
Station CB1
Station CB2
Station CB3
Station CB4
Station CB5
Station CB6
Linear (Department-Wide)
2030
------------
.... •· -·· ----
.... •····
········· .... •····
20
2013–2019 Travel Time Increase Department-Wide and
by Station With Linear Department-Wide Forecast
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2030
Department-Wide
Station CB1
Station CB2
Station CB3
Station CB4
Station CB5
Station CB6
Linear (Department-Wide)
21
Incidents Reached –Total Response Time
Accumulation
7:30
Actual 8:51
F'ra,ctile for Incidents Call to 1st Arrival
900 -----------------------------
-Vl 800 +------------
I I • I I I
.._.
~ 700 +-----------
"'O ·-600 +-------------=== u lllllr-1
1111111
C: ......,. 500 ---------.......
O 400 --------
1111111
-I I I I I I I I I
L..
~ 300 +--------
E 200 +--------
::i
Z100 ------
0 1--.-J._. ...
o 30 r:.:,o 9C\1..C\S(.\.'t>Oi,\. Oi oS\ 1(.\0(.\ 3~o<.\ 90e,;1.00is00i't>Cs \. Cs os.~~ 1 %0% 3%0%90,1..0,sO, 'ti~\.~~~1~(.)C.)
I I I I I I I I I I 1-
-1111111111111
Seconds
2222
Current Deployment Coverage Maps
Legend
Uncongested
--• Congested
Fire Stations • Engine • Engine, Medic
■ Truck, BC
!·-·-·i Carlsbad Limits I,_,_,..:
Legend
Uncongested
--• Congested
Fire Stations • Engine • Engine, Medic
■ Truck, BC
!·-·-·i Carlsbad Limits I,_,_,..;
Legend
Uncongested
-congested
Fire Stations • Engine • Engine, Medic
■ Truck, BC
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
Legend
Uncongested
--• Congested
Fire Stations • Engine • Engine, Medic
■ Truck, BC
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
Legend
Fire Stations • Engine • Engine, Medic
■ Truck, BC
!·-·-·i Carlsbad Limits I,_,_,..;
Legend
Fire Stations • Engine • Engine, Medic
■ Truck, BC
!·-·-·i Carlsbad Limits I,_,_,..;
29
•Fire unit travel times are longer than desired
due to terrain, the road network, and traffic
congestion
•Call processing time and crew turnout times
are excellent
•Call to arrival time, at 8:51 minutes, is
significantly past a best practices mark of 7:30
minutes
Deployment Findings
30
•Ambulance capacity is saturated at peak hours
•Simultaneous incidents are a problem in
Station 1’s service area
•Response time and ambulance capacity can
only be improved with added units, at more
than one location
•EMS growth, infill development, and traffic
congestion have overcome a 6-station model
if positive outcomes are the goal
Deployment Findings (cont.)
31
Deployment Changes Historical Perspective
Year Event Population
Number
of EMS
Incidents
EMS Incidents per
1,000 Resident
Population
1990 Fire Station/Engine 6 opened
in mid-1989 63,388 2,246 35/1,000
2006 Third ambulance was added
full-time in 2006 92,753 5,040 54/1,000
2019 EMS workload analysis for
Citygate SOC study 114,420 8,722*76/1,000
Percentage Increase (1990 to 2019)81%288%117%
*8,600 was projected for 2024 in 2006 analysis
•It has been 31 years since adding a fire engine and 14 years
since adding an ambulance, despite significant EMS incident
growth
3232
Deployment Coverage Improvement
Options
Legend
Uncongested
-congested
Fire Stations • Engine ... Truck • Engine, BC • Engine, Medic ... Truck, Medic
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
Legend
c=== Uncongested
-congested
Fire Stations • Engine ... Truck • Engine, BC • Engine, Medic ... Truck, Medic
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
Legend
c=== Uncongested
-congested
Fire Stations • Engine ... Truck • Engine, BC • Engine, Medic ... Truck, Medic
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
Legend
c=== Uncongested
-congested
Fire Stations • Engine ... Truck • Engine, BC • Engine, Medic ... Truck, Medic
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
Legend
Existing Coverage
--Station 4 Coverage
-Station 6 Coverage
Fire Stations
• Engine, Medic
■ Truck, BC
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
Legend
-Existing Coverage
Station 4 Coverage
-Station 6 Coverage
Fire Stations
• Engine, Medic
■ Truck, BC
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
···n ···
Legend
Uncongested
-congested
c=== Uncongested Coverage Loss
-Congested Coverage Loss
Fire Stations • Engine ... Truck • Engine, BC • Engine, Medic ... Truck, Medic
r-·-·--i,_, __ J Carlsbad Limits
4040
Ambulance Service and Economics
41
•Two -paramedic/firefighter ambulance model
is more expensive; it was designed for another
era with far fewer, mostly serious patients
•Many systems have moved to a staffing model
of one paramedic/firefighter and one non-
sworn EMT
•If Carlsbad shifted to an EMT model, the
added personnel would be non-sworn,
CalPERS PEPRA members
Ambulance Staffing Options
42
•5 –North County systems staff one
firefighter/paramedic on most or all
ambulances
•2 –Systems use two firefighter/paramedics on
all ambulances
•1 –One of the above also uses supplemental
two-EMT basic ambulances for low acuity
transports
Ambulance Staffing in North County
43
Transport Revenue Sources
54%
15%
8%
23%
Medicare Medi-Cal Uninsured and Unknown Private Insurance
Medicare
Medi-Cal
Private Insurance
Uninsured
■ ■ ■ ■
44
Transport Revenues
Revenue Amount
FY 18/19 Gross Revenue $5,934,344
FY 18/19 Net Revenue $2,499,395
FY 19/20 Estimated Net Revenue1 $2,761,000
FY 18/19 Revenue Summary and FY 19/20 Revenue Estimate
Revenue Amount
Supplemental government revenue projections $169,000
Additional net revenue from non-mutual-aid transports $240,043
Total $409,043
FY 20/21 Projected Additional Revenues
1 Does not include unknowns due to the spring 2020 COVID-19 pandemic
45
Recommendations and Next Steps
46
•Add ambulance capacity soon 24/7/365
•Engage the workforce and move to a staffing
model of one paramedic/firefighter and one
EMT
•Conduct an ambulance rate review in 2020
and maximize recovery from public and
private insurers, not out-of-pocket payors
Enhance Ambulance Service
47
•To control travel times and lower them in the northwest quadrant, add a seventh station on the coast south of the Village –use freed up paramedic/firefighters for ambulance staffing conversion to one paramedic/firefighter and one EMT
•Move the ladder truck/quint to Station 7
•Staff an engine company at Station 5
•Plan for two more stations at location #8 and a 9th in south La Costa
–Staff these stations with two-firefighter Fast Response Units for rapid EMS first response and first aid firefighting pending the arrival of the nearest engine
Long-Term –Enhance Fire Crew/Unit Coverage
48
Pre COVID-19 Long-Term Staffing Options / Personnel Costs
Add 4th Rescue Ambulance (RA) and Station 7
•Total FY 19/20 Fire operating budget is $25,724,746, so fourth ambulance and
seventh engine is a 6% increase
•Traditional fourth ambulance cost is approximately 56% of the ambulance and
engine cost
Deployment Change
PM/FFs That
Become
Available
Staff Needed
Per Shift
Total Staff
Needed for 3
Shifts
Total Added
Compensation
Add 4th RA Using Current Staffing (2 PM/FFs)
Add 2 PM/FFs to the 4th RA 0 2 PM/FF 6 PM/FF $880,038
Add 4th RA Using Modified Staffing (1 PM/FF and 1 EMT) and Add 7th Engine
Add 1 EMT on all 4 RAs and remove 1
PM/FF from existing 3 RAs 9 PM/FF 4 EMT 12 EMT
$1,561,797Add 1 PM/FF to the 4th RA 0 1 PM/FF 3 PM/FF
Add 7th engine 6 FTE 3 FTE 3 FTE
Add Station 8 and 9 with Fast Response Units
Add 2 Fast Response Units (one per
station)-4 FTE 12 FTE Future
49
COVID-19 Impact Staffing Option / Personnel Costs
Add 2 Rescue Ambulances Soon, Delay Station 7
Deployment Change
PM/FFs That
Become
Available
Staff
Needed Per
Shift
Total Staff
Needed for
3 Shifts
Total Added
Compensation
Add 1 EMT on all 5 RAs and
remove 1 PM/FF from existing 3
RAs
9 PM/FF 5 EMT 15 EMT $1,265,130
Add 1 PM/FF to the 4th and 5th RA 0 2 PM/FF 6 PM/FF 0
Move 4th PM/FF to ladder truck 0 1 PM/FF 3 PM/FF 0
Subtract the revenue increase of $409,043 from adding two
RAs to partially offset added personnel costs
Net
Increase:$856,087
50
•Distribution of Fire Stations:To treat pre-
hospital medical emergencies and control
small fires, the first-due unit should arrive
within 7:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time
from the receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North
Comm. This equates to a 90-second dispatch
time, a 2:00-minute company turnout time,
and a 4:00-minute travel time.
Adopt a First-Due Unit Response Time
Policy
51
•To confine building fires near the room of
origin, keep vegetation fires under five acres
in size, extricate trapped victims within 30:00
minutes, and treat multiple medical patients
at a single incident, a multiple-unit ERF should arrive within 11:30 minutes, 90 percent of the
time from the receipt of the 9-1-1 call at North Comm. This equates to a 90-second dispatch
time, 2:00-minute company turnout time, and
8:00-minute travel time.
Adopt a Multiple-Unit (First Alarm)
Response Time Policy
52
•Review and absorb the content, findings, and
recommendations of this report
•Consider adopting response performance goals at
a future meeting, as recommended in this report
•Conduct an ambulance rate review in 2020
•Ask staff to return with an implementation plan
for this study’s operational and Capital
Improvement Budget recommendations with
funding priorities over several fiscal years.
Next Steps
53
Discussion