“Fire Risk Management: Cities Do it – Why Not the County?”

I (we) agree with the findings numbered: 2. I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed; include an explanation of the reasons.) RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Recommendations numbered R7 have been implemented. (Attach a summary describing the implementation actions.) 2. Recommendations numbered have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. (Attach a timeframe for the implementation.) 3. Recommendations numbered R4 require further analysis. (Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report.) 4. Recommendations numbered will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation.) Date: August 16, 2019 Signed: Number of pages attached: 1 August 16, 2019 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Attention: Lynlee Blackburn, Foreperson Post Office Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-4910 Regarding: San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report, “Fire Risk Management” Foreperson Blackburn, As requested in the above mentioned report, listed below are the requested responses from the Five Cities Fire Authority: Recommendation R4 – Chipping Program The Five Cities Fire Authority requested chipping equipment through the Fire Safe Council in the recent past; unfortunately, funds were unavailable to support the request. The purchase, maintenance and program management costs related to this type of program would need to be weighed against other existing community priorities.