Observations
Observations are listed in the order they appear in the document. • FCFA operates from 2 stations and serves approximately 10 square miles with 38,000 residents across 2 member cities (Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach) and 1 contract community services district (Oceano CSD, served via San Luis Obispo County contract as of January 1, 2025).
• FCFA relies heavily on automatic and mutual aid for more complex incidents. • Personnel costs account for approximately 77% of the FCFA expenditures. • Member Agencies account for approximately 93% of the FCFA operating expenditures.
• The City of Arroyo Grande contributes 43%, the City of Grover Beach contributes 31%, and the Oceano Community Service District (OCSD) contract makes up 19% of member funding. This aligns closely with population distribution.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 208
• The exit of OCSD from the FCFA raises some uncertainty and challenges for staffing and the FCFA's financial structure.
• Some FCFA responders serve on regional hazardous materials and urban searchand-rescue teams, adding specialty training and experience to the community. • FCFA has a slightly higher percentage of persons aged 65 or older than the state. • FCFA has a notably high percentage of residents living in one- or two-family dwellings.
• Wildfire risk in Arroyo Grande is considered significant. • Flood risk for the member cities of the FCFA is dominated by the Lopez Dam and 100- and 500-year flood events.
• The FCFA has a high earthquake potential.
• FCFA responds to 72% of its incidents between 8 AM and 8 PM. • The FCFA response area had 4,020 incidents that were not listed as cancelled in 2024:
• This averaged slightly more than 10 incident responses per day, primarily medical responses.
• The highest number of responses was 29 (on 2/4/2024). Ninety percent of the days there were 16 or fewer.
• The fewest responses were 1 (occurring 3/10/2024). Ten percent of the days had 6 or fewer responses.
• The most common number of responses per day (the mode) was 10, with half of the days having between 8 and 12 responses.
• The Engine 92 crew was the busiest with 1,649 responses in 2024. This is an annual average unit usage of 7.4%. The apparatus had 70 days, or 20% of days, without any responses. The maximum number of responses was 16 per day, with the most likely (mode) value, after zero days removed, being 4.
• FCFA has a 16% chance of running multiple incidents at the same time. • For the period of 2019 through 2024, FCFA response time components include a turnout time of 3 minutes, 21 seconds, a first due travel time of 6 minutes, 42 seconds, and a total response time of 9 minutes, 27 seconds or faster, 90 percent of the time.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 209
• Even though incident demand is expected to continue increasing, population growth is unlikely to be noticeable.
• Mutual and automatic aid programs are well established and defined. • Most incident unit assignments meet the risk level and the assumed responder needs.
Findings
Findings are separated by each specialty function, and the associated recommendation is referenced.
Finance
• Maintaining a balanced budget is critical, but reimbursable revenues and contributions from FCFA member agencies are projected to result in an operating deficit for Fiscal Years 2024–25, 2025–26, and 2026–27. (Recommendation 1) • FCFA’s fund balance goal is 10%. Projected operating deficits will bring the Authority’s fund balance below the goal in Fiscal Year 2026–27. (Recommendation 1)
• Some frontline apparatus and vehicles are identified as being in poor condition. For that reason, vehicle maintenance costs have increased from $167,000 in Fiscal Year 2022-23 to a projected $275,000 in Fiscal Year 2025–26, an increase of 69%. (Recommendation 2)
• FCFA uses the City of Arroyo Grande’s CalPERS contract for Authority employees; upon withdrawal from the Authority, the Member Agencies are liable for their respective shares of CalPERS liability. (Recommendation 3) Services Provided
• There is no schedule to inspect all commercial properties. (Recommendation 4) • Operational fire code permits are not being issued. (Recommendation 5) • There is no fire and life safety educator to provide risk reduction for the community. (Recommendation 6)
• Plan review is contracted to a private company. (Recommendation 6) Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 210
• While the FCFA contracts for fire marshal services, it does not have a staff fire marshal. However, both the cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach name the Fire Chief as the fire code official, adding to the Fire Chief’s workload and management responsibilities.32 (Recommendation 6)
• Fire and life safety code inspections are completed by the Engine Companies and by contract. The engine companies conduct the required multi-family inspections. In contrast, the contracted inspection services conduct new construction and tenant improvement inspections and provide technical expertise on fire code standards for development. (Recommendation 6)
• FCFA does not appear to have a fully vetted or written QI/QA plan. (Recommendation 7)
• FCFA provides BLS medical services only. (Recommendation 8) • Approximately 59% of the service demand is for emergency medical incidents, and FCFA relies on a private company to provide ALS services. (Recommendation 8) Community Risk Assessment
• Responsibility for the enforcement of the San Luis Obispo County’s weed abatement ordinance for the OCSD area is not yet addressed. (Recommendation 7) Standard of Cover
• The station closure in the OCSD area limits the effectiveness of any fire agency in the area. (Recommendation 9 & Recommendation 10)
• Of the area agencies, FCFA provides the closest coverage for the OCSD area. (Recommendation 10, Recommendation 12)
• Most of the area cannot be reached by more than 12 personnel, even with mutual aid companies. This means that most incidents of moderate or high complexity cannot assemble an effective response force within a reasonable time. (Recommendation 9, Recommendation 12)
• The closest mutual aid agencies are all part of the Call Fire system, including those in Pismo Beach and the Nipomo area. (Recommendation 11)
• There is no evidence of a comprehensive regional training program in place. (Recommendation 11)
32 Arroyo Grande, California Municipal Code, (part 8.04.024) & City of Grover Beach, California Code of Ordaninces (part 150.041).
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 211
• The agency has not adopted official response performance standards nor identified any areas of improvement. (Recommendation 12)
• With the current auto aid agreements in place, FCFA would likely be responsible for the response to OCSD unless another agency opens a station closer to the area. (Recommendation 13)
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 212
STRATEGIES & RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Incorporate an inflationary adjustment clause into the resolution adopting the fee schedule, allowing the board to annually adjust fees through a subsequent resolution.
Description: To ensure that the fee schedule remains aligned with actual costs, the resolution should include a provision for inflationary adjustments. An annual internal review process will evaluate whether fees require adjustment based on inflation, service delivery costs, or other economic factors.
Outcomes: Regular inflationary adjustments will ensure fees keep pace with rising costs, preventing budgetary shortfalls.
Estimated Financial Cost: None if integrated into the annual budget process.
Recommendation 2: Establish a capital asset replacement fund and funding strategy.
Description: FCFA attempted to establish a vehicle replacement schedule. However, it lacks a capital asset replacement fund due to insufficient support from Member Agencies.
Develop a proactive capital asset replacement and funding plan by setting aside funds for future replacements, rather than seeking financing when capital assets are due for replacement.
Outcomes: Capital replacement plans allow FCFA to budget for significant expenses in advance, avoiding budget overruns and potential financial strain. Replacing assets before they fail can reduce emergency repair costs. Newer, well-maintained assets require less maintenance, leading to long-term cost savings, improved operating efficiency, and compliance with safety standards.
Estimated Financial Cost: Cost savings in financing costs, emergency repairs, and maintenance.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 213
Recommendation 3: Conduct an annual actuarial update of the respective share of FCFA’s pensionable balance and develop a funding plan.
Description: An annual actuary update of each member agency’s allocated share of UAL will provide further transparency and accountability. An annual actuary update provides transparency and ensures accountability for each member agency’s share of the Authority’s portion of the pension UAL. Because the Authority does not have its own contract with CalPERS, its employees are part of the City of Arroyo Grande’s pension plan, which includes City police and miscellaneous employees.
Outcomes: The actuary's report for the FCFA portion of the pension UAL will provide a clear picture of the Authority's funding status and each member’s FCFA obligation, enabling the Authority and each member to develop a funding strategy to ensure the plan’s financial health and long-term sustainability. In addition, the annual update will provide an accurate calculation and accounting of each member agency’s assets and liabilities based on its contributions to the plan.
Estimated Financial Cost: To be determined, the cost depends on the level of analysis performed by Foster and Foster to memorialize the Oceano Community Services District’s ongoing share of unfunded CalPERS Liabilities. Since the study's framework has been established, FCFA will need to expand the scope for the annual update.
Recommendation 4: Develop a schedule to inspect all commercial occupancies.
Description: Currently, the FCFA does not have a formal schedule in place for inspecting all commercial occupancies, which presents a gap in fire prevention efforts. Without a structured inspection program, some properties may go unchecked for extended periods, increasing the likelihood that fire code violations—such as blocked exits, faulty electrical systems, or inadequate fire suppression equipment—could go unnoticed. These violations pose serious risks to the safety of building occupants, employees, and first responders.
With available personnel primarily focused on mandated inspections—such as those required for schools, healthcare facilities, and high-risk occupancies—there are insufficient resources to conduct regular inspections of lower-priority or non-mandated commercial properties. As a result, many businesses may not receive the oversight needed to ensure compliance with fire safety standards.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 214
Establishing a consistent inspection schedule, supported by adequate staffing and resources, would help identify and correct hazards before they lead to emergencies. It would also promote a culture of fire safety within the business community, improve code compliance, and enhance the overall safety and resilience of FCFA commercial infrastructure.
Outcome: Developing a risk-based inspection schedule for commercial properties in the FCFA response area would significantly enhance fire and life safety for both building occupants and FCFA personnel. By prioritizing inspections based on factors such as building occupancy type, prior code violations, fire protection systems, and potential hazards, the department can allocate its limited resources more effectively and focus on properties that pose the most significant risk to public safety. This targeted approach not only helps identify and address fire code violations before emergencies occur but also ensures that high-risk buildings receive the attention they need to remain compliant and safe. It increases situational awareness for responding crews, who gain up-to-date knowledge of building layouts, hazards, and fire protection features—ultimately reducing the risk of injury during emergency operations.
A structured, risk-based schedule enhances consistency and transparency in the inspection process, thereby building trust with business owners and the wider community. It promotes proactive compliance, reduces the risk of fire-related incidents, and supports the department’s broader mission of protecting lives, property, and the environment. Over time, this approach helps develop a safer, more resilient community while efficiently utilizing available staffing and resources.
Estimated Cost: The initial costs are for staff time spent identifying all commercial properties within the service area. Additional expenses will be incurred if current staffing levels are insufficient to schedule inspections for all commercial occupancies.
Recommendation 5: Inspect and issue operational permits.
Description: Section 105.6 of the California Fire Code outlines the requirement for operational permits for specific activities and conditions that pose potential fire or life safety risks. For the Five Cities Fire Authority, this section serves as a regulatory framework to ensure that businesses and facilities conducting certain operations maintain compliance with fire safety standards. Permit holders are responsible for maintaining compliance throughout the year, including proper storage and handling of hazardous materials, ensuring that fire protection systems are functional, and keeping safety documentation, such as Material Safety Data Sheets, readily available.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 215
Outcomes: These permits aim to reduce hazards that could threaten the public or emergency responders. Issuing an operational permit yields key outcomes that enhance public safety, ensure regulatory compliance, and facilitate a swift emergency response. It ensures that the permitted activity complies with the fire prevention code, reducing the likelihood of fire incidents and protecting occupants and property. Additionally, it creates a formal oversight system. Requiring permits allows the fire authority to conduct regular inspections, confirm safety measures, and enforce necessary corrective actions. This proactive strategy helps identify and mitigate risks before they escalate into emergencies.
Operational permits also serve as legal and administrative tools. They provide proof that a business or facility is authorized to carry out specific activities, which can be crucial during audits, insurance assessments, or legal cases. Additionally, they help improve communication between the fire department and the permit holder, encouraging collaboration on safety education and emergency readiness.
Recommendation 6: Hire a Fire Marshal.
Description: Hiring a fire marshal for FCFA is a strategic and essential decision that directly enhances public safety, operational efficiency, and regulatory compliance across the communities it serves. A fire marshal brings specialized expertise in fire prevention, code enforcement, and fire investigation, functions critical to reducing the risk of fire-related incidents and ensuring that buildings and operations meet stringent safety standards.
The fire marshal serves as the Authority’s lead figure in interpreting and applying the California Fire Code, conducting inspections of commercial, industrial, and residential properties, and identifying hazards before they become emergencies. This proactive oversight not only protects lives and property but also reduces the Authority's and its member cities' liability. In addition to inspections, the fire marshal plays a vital role in reviewing building plans and permits, ensuring that new developments and renovations incorporate fire-safe design and systems from the outset. Currently, the fire chief serves as the primary lead for fire code enforcement, which prevents them from functioning effectively as the organization's chief.
Outcomes: A fire marshal yields a range of impactful outcomes that strengthen the safety, efficiency, and resilience of the communities served. An immediate benefit is enhanced fire prevention efforts. A fire marshal leads the charge in enforcing fire codes, conducting inspections, and ensuring that buildings and operations comply with safety regulations, including the state-mandated inspections. This proactive oversight significantly reduces the likelihood of fire incidents, protecting lives, property, and the environment.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 216
Operationally, the presence of a fire marshal streamlines permitting processes, such as those required under Section 105.6 of the California Fire Code. Their expertise ensures that permits are issued with a clear understanding of associated risks and compliance requirements, thereby improving administrative efficiency and accountability.
Estimated Cost: The salary and benefits for this position range from $175,000 to $250,000, depending on the employee's rank.
Recommendation 7: Develop a quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) plan.
Description: Medical incidents make up almost 60% of FCFA’s responses, and as such, a QI/QA plan and process are essential to response success. The plan outlines the methods and procedures for measuring, evaluating, and improving quality and meeting quality standards. While many of the elements of this plan are in place, there is no formal documentation. This type of evaluation is critical for an agency that wishes to expand its service scope to meet community needs.
Outcomes: A documented improvement plan that will help FCFA meet regulatory requirements.
Estimated Cost: Staff time. It may be rolled into other plans, such as an ALS implementation feasibility plan.
Recommendation 8: Conduct a detailed feasibility assessment of converting to an ALS first responder service.
Description: FCFA currently provides emergency medical first response services with basic life support (BLS) emergency medical technicians. Advanced life support (ALS) services are provided by a contracted private ambulance service. This can delay the deployment of needed ALS skills. Enhancing medical service levels at FCFA may speed the delivery of these necessary services. In addition, adding ALS first responders may have a positive financial impact, allowing FCFA to collect higher response fees for services provided.
However, it is outside the scope of this report to determine whether the increased responder fees would offset the higher costs of providing this service.
Outcome: Improve response time and resource allocation for critical care patients requiring ALS-level care.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 217
Estimated Cost: Several costs are associated with adding ALS to the response capabilities, including equipment, training, and pay for certified firefighters. There may be additional revenue available for providing this service. A detailed feasibility assessment and the development of a program will require staff time, assistance from the San Luis Obispo Public Health Department, and input from other medical and financial professionals. In 2025, utilizing a consultant to conduct a feasibility study with an implementation plan was less than $30,000.
Recommendation 9: Maintain a minimum of 3 companies staffed with three responders.
Description: Due to the limited resources, the size of the Authority, the risks, and the area aid obligations, it is critical to have an initial attack of sufficient force and size to mitigate hazards. It is also essential to assemble an effective response force (ERF) in a reasonable time. The ERF studies in this report assumed a minimum staff of three on two engines, two on the truck, and one command officer. Even with this staffing, only in Grover Beach from 6th Street west, to the coast can expect a timely ERF for a moderate-risk structure fire. That also assumes that all other companies are available throughout the automatic and mutual aid companies.
Additionally, a crew of two cannot safely begin a response where water and entry are needed to mitigate the hazard. For safety, an apparatus operator must remain outside with the engine pumping water or operate a truck during arial operations, further placing demands and reducing high-hazard operational usefulness of a two-person crew. This indicates that the prudent course for the fire department is to maintain at least three effective units, each of which can initiate firefighting operations.
Outcome: To satisfy response requirements, additional staffing is needed to ensure at least three capable first-due units are available throughout the system at all times.
Estimated Cost: Staffing one additional position for three apparatus, with a minimum staff of 3, would add the annual burdened salary for a firefighter, including overtime, to maintain the minimum staffing. This estimates approximately $170,000 per position, burdened, and includes average overtime filled by the same pay-level employee, as the average operations employee is absent approximately 20% of the time. Total costs in 2026 are estimated at an additional $500,000, fully burdened, and positions are filled with overtime due to an absence for the 1 additional firefighter per shift.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 218
Recommendation 10: Evaluate the best location to support the western and southern sections of the jurisdiction.
Description: The current station locations are decent for a two-station system. One on each side of the highway, which can serve as a natural barrier and be far enough apart to cover a large area while remaining close enough to offer mutual coverage. However, the southwester portion of Arroyo Grande, north of The Pike, is not in an optimal service area.
There appear to be two options and two immediate future states to discuss. The first option for FCFA is to either add a station to cover the area or to move the Grover Beach station further east on East Grand Avenue. Optimal coverage appears to be in the area along East Grand Avenue, between South Oak Park Boulevard and Elm Street. As long as FCFA remains an authority rather than merging the two city departments into a Fire Protection District, the Grover Beach community will likely not favor moving a station out of the city, which limits a station move to East Grand Avenue or west of South Oak Park Boulevard. This is also an opportunity for the City of Grover Beach to determine whether additional city space is needed or whether consolidating city facilities would be a better option for citizens. In this case, a combined city building, such as police, or city hall, and a fire station would share some of the costs of a new station.
Another consideration, although less critical to the Authority, would be OCSD's contractual requirements. If the expectation is that FCFA maintains the required service coverage, an additional station, optimally near The Pike and Elm Street, would add the needed coverage for the cities and improve coverage to the south.
Outcome: Create capital facilities that improve coverage for both cities within the FCFA and enhance coverage in the OCSD area.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 219
Estimated Cost: Because the cost of a fire station project is subject to many different influencing factors, the estimate provided here is based on generic costing found in an internet search and is as of December 15, 2025. The items listed in the standard cost guide include site acquisition (from 11% to 21% of total cost), construction from 800 to 12,000 square feet (from 50% to 56% of total cost), additional equipment and apparatus (approximately 18%), permits and fees (approximately 2%), design and engineering (approximately 7%), and allowing for a contingency (approximately 5%).33 From this list, FCFA should expect to spend between $14,755,000 for a moderately sized station with land and $57,780,000 for a larger, well-equipped station with land. These final cost estimates include an additional 130% to 180% increase due to California area cost premiums.34 Recommendation 11: Work with regional partners to develop a regional training program.
Description: FCFA and the surrounding agencies rely heavily on automatic and mutual aid to provide enough responders and equipment to mitigate more complex incident types.
These are high-risk, low-frequency events that can be dangerous and lead to significant losses. To efficiently capture and utilize these responders, it is vital to plan, educate, and exercise these events before they are needed. This requires an aggressively managed planning and training program for commanders, communicators, and responders. It is so critically important that it is mentioned in section I, paragraph C, of the automatic aid agreement between FCFA and the Cal Fire fire departments in the area. The first step is to develop a regional plan, a training program, and a calendar.
Outcome: Continuously improved inter-agency emergency response.
Estimated Cost: This will require staff time and attention, but no additional costs. Overtime costs may be incurred if off-duty training or backfill for training companies is approved. 33 latestcost.com/fire-station-construction-cost/
34 bidsanalytics.com/construction-cost-variations-by-region-why-your-project-costs-more-in-somestates/ Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 220
Recommendation 12: Adopt and periodically report response service standards and goals.
Description: Response standards are an agreement between the fire authority, the fire service providers, and the citizens that clarify expectations. These standards are the minimum an agency must meet to provide an effective service. Currently, FCFA has no adopted response-time standards to provide management with guidance on resource deployment. Knowing what the agency can accomplish will enable it to publish standards and performance metrics for transparency and accountability. This also allows management and elected leaders to judge where scarce assets and capital resources should be focused to meet community expectations. For FCFA, the recommendation is to adopt first due apparatus type and arrival time standards, and to show the incident time segment parts. This standard is the current baseline minimum performance, based on the 2023 and 2024 performance. Breaking incidents into specific segments enables goal-based management.
Setting goals helps management and authority leadership determine where capital and assets can be utilized to improve service to the community. Using a time-based goal helps citizens understand what is hoped to be gained from additional investment in time and resources. A proven approach is to establish achievable goals utilizing the SMART methodology (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound). Setting initial goals based on standards, such as NFPA 1710, is defensible but perhaps not feasible.
Therefore, the agency should adopt attainable goals. The following indicates realistic response standards based on 2023 and 2024 performance, and suggested goals based on what appears achievable.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 221
Figure 137: Performance Statements
FCFA Incident Response Performance Statements
Fire, HazMat,
Technical Rescue
For emergency Fire, HazMat, and Technical Rescue incidents, FCFA will respond within 9 minutes and 45 seconds or faster, 90 percent of the time.
The first due response will have a minimum of three responders, capable and equipped to enter a hazardous environment with positive-pressure airway protection and a minimum of level C protective garments. For incidents involving fire or hazardous materials, the apparatus will carry a minimum of 300 gallons of water and be capable of pumping 1,000 gallons per minute at a minimum of 150 PSI. Responders will maintain two-way radio communications at all times.
Wildland
For emergency Wildland Interface and Vegetation incidents, FCFA will respond within 9 minutes and 45 seconds, 90 percent of the time. The first due response will have at least two responders, capable and equipped to safely start, at a minimum, an indirect attack. The apparatus will carry a minimum of 400 gallons of water and be capable of pumping 50 gallons per minute at 100 PSI. Responders will be able to set up a command structure and maintain two-way radio communications at all times.
Medical
For emergency Medical incidents, FCFA will respond within 9 minutes and 15 seconds or faster, 90 percent of the time. The first due response will include at least two responders, capable and equipped to provide basic life support.
Responders will maintain two-way radio communications at all times.
For all non-emergency incidents, FCFA will respond within 11 minutes and 30 seconds or faster 90 percent of the time. The first arriving unit will have at least one responder able to maintain two-way radio communications.
FCFA Performance Reporting
Frequency: Annual Due By: End of 1st Quarter
Deliver To: Public Report through the Fire Authority Board Minimum Components
Incident Volume In District Out of District Type
Time Components Standard Goal Notes
Call Processing 106 seconds;
90th Percentile
106 seconds;
90th Percentile
By contract with
ECC. Based on
NFPA 1225.
Turnout Time
(Emergency, in
District)
2 Mins & 44 Secs
90th Percentile 2 Minutes
Improvement
through crew
awareness, policy,
and supervision.
Travel Time
(Emergency in
District, First Due)
Member Cities: 6 Mins & 35 Secs
Contract Areas: 8 min & 13 Secs
90th Percentile
Improvements are
strategic, including
where stations are
located.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 222
Outcome: By adopting and reporting on performance, residents will know what they can expect, and managers will know when the system is stressed and not working to its full potential.
Estimated Cost: Primarily staff time and costs associated with training a staff member in analytics and reporting. Potentially additional software, additional features, or functionality from the Image Trend records management system.
Recommendation 13: Ensure automatic and mutual aid responses continue to support all agencies' response requirements.
Description: While extremely valuable for the regional fire and emergency services protection in the area, the automatic aid agreement has had the effect of shifting some of Cal Fire’s responses to FCFA. In 2024, FCFA, as discussed, the future of the OCSD contract is in question, and while working under a contract, it will remain so. For FCFA, what must be taken into account is the continued automatic aid agreements, especially if Cal Fire takes over the OCSD contract. Historically, FCFA has provided more aid than it has received. In 2024, FCFA responded to 210 Auto Aid assignments, 43% in Pismo Beach and 32% in the area between FCFA and the Cal Fire Mesa Station.
If Cal Fire takes over the contract from OCSD, FCFA stands to lose significant financial benefits. At the same time, the auto aid agreements bind them to respond to the same number of incidents. It may become a burden on FCFA to cover not only its own area of responsibility but also a large proportion of those in OCSD and the auto aid areas directly to the south, when the reduced financial position may endanger the number of staff available to respond from FCFA.
The current situation is not beyond FCFA's ability to support, and the resources Cal Fire can bring to an emergency event are more than likely to outweigh the current lopsided aidgiven-versus-aid-received ratio. Maintaining this level of support, especially with FCFA retaining the financial benefit of the OCSD, is the most beneficial scenario. If the financial benefit of the contract were to change, it would alter the balance and mutual support capacities of FCFA. This is, of course, alleviated if Cal Fire opens a station in or near the OCSD.
Outcome: Maintaining an automatic and mutual aid program that benefits the residents of both the county fire department and FCFA without overly burdening either agency with emergency responses as identified in the auto aid agreement.
Estimated Cost: No costs if current agreements are maintained.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 223
SECTION V:
Appendices
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 224
APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Introduction to the Stakeholder Interviews
Triton interviewed various internal and external stakeholders of the Five City Fire Authority (FCFA). These interviews aimed to better understand issues, concerns, and options regarding the emergency service delivery system, opportunities for shared services, and community members' expectations.
It is important to note that the information solicited and provided during this process was in the form of "people inputs" (stakeholders individually responding to our questions), including perceptions reported by stakeholders. All information was accepted at face value without an in-depth investigation of its origin or reliability. The project team reviewed the information for consistency and frequency of comments to identify specific patterns and/or trends. Multiple sources enhanced the credibility of the observations, and the information provided was sufficient to be included in this report.
Stakeholders were identified within the following groups: Elected Officials, County Management, Department Heads, Chief Officers, Labor Leaders, Volunteer and Career Rank & File, Businesses, Community Groups, Community Members, and Other Volunteers.
The following summarizes the answers to the questions. In addition, specific concerns that appeared to be a common theme are identified.
Feedback Review by Question
Question 1: What strengths contribute to the success of the Fire Authority? (What does the Five Cities Fire Authority do well?)
Key Themes:
▪ Adaptability and organizational evolution from three separate communities into one unified authority
▪ Strong personnel engagement, motivation, and community connections ▪ Quality of emergency response services and efficient use of limited resources ▪ Improved leadership and labor-management relationships Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 225
Summary Narrative:
Respondents consistently identified the organization's ability to adapt and evolve as a fundamental strength. Multiple interviewees noted the successful transition from three separate communities into one unified authority, with the organization demonstrating flexibility through various staffing models and operational changes since 2010. The personnel were described as engaged, motivated, and progressive, with several respondents characterizing the workforce as the "heart and soul" of the organization.
The quality of service delivery was frequently mentioned as a strength. Respondents noted good response times, high-quality EMS service, and effective fire suppression capabilities.
The organization's ability to accomplish substantial work with limited resources was emphasized by multiple stakeholders, with comments about efficiency and budgetary constraints. Community connections were highlighted as particularly strong, with personnel having deep ties to the communities they serve and actively participating in community events.
Several respondents noted leadership improvements. The current leadership was characterized as bringing operational knowledge, local understanding, and a clear vision for the organization. Interviewees mentioned improved labor-management relations, greater cooperation among agencies within the joint powers authority, and increased transparency. Several respondents noted that the Fire Chief's engagement with city leadership and attendance at city staff meetings has strengthened organizational relationships. The transition in leadership from a more politically-focused to an operationally-focused approach was viewed as beneficial for internal cohesion and service delivery.
Question 2: What are some areas in which you think the Fire Authority could make improvements?
Key Themes:
▪ Staffing levels and resource allocation
▪ Policy and procedure development, consistency, and implementation ▪ Training program consistency and coordination
▪ Organizational culture and communication
▪ Fire prevention services and programming
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 226
Summary Narrative:
Staffing emerged as the most frequently mentioned area for improvement. Respondents expressed concerns about minimum staffing levels, the impact of cross-staffing on risk, and challenges created by multiple work assignments without adequate support personnel.
Several interviewees discussed the need for competitive wages and aggressive recruitment to maintain sufficient staffing levels. The workload distribution and perceived lack of promised workload reduction following the addition of battalion chiefs were also noted.
Policy and procedure development was identified as a significant improvement area by multiple respondents. Interviewees mentioned the need for consistency in policies, more straightforward operational guidelines, and improved follow-through in implementation.
The transition from informal guidelines to formally adopted policies was discussed, with specific mention of using platforms such as Lexipol. Training consistency was linked to policy concerns, with respondents noting the need for more coordinated training across shifts and for standardized practices, such as hose-loading procedures.
Organizational culture and communication presented opportunities for improvement, according to several stakeholders. Respondents noted that three distinct cultures from the original agencies remain present, with newer employees absorbing culture from older generations. Messaging consistency between shifts and improved communication between the authority and the two cities were mentioned as areas needing attention.
Several interviewees discussed the need for better public engagement, community outreach, and education about the fire authority's role and costs.
Fire prevention was explicitly identified as an unresolved issue requiring attention.
Respondents noted a disconnect between city-contracted prevention services and actual needs. They suggested establishing an in-house fire prevention position or bureau.
Additional improvement areas mentioned included the need for strategic planning documents, such as a master plan or an updated strategic plan; better project management and higher completion rates; improved funding consistency and mechanisms; and enhanced branding and public perception of the organization.
Question 3: What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities of the Fire Authority?
Key Themes:
▪ Advanced Life Support (ALS) service expansion
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 227
▪ Fire prevention bureau establishment and fee-based services ▪ Staffing model changes and station location optimization ▪ Grant funding opportunities
▪ Enhanced training and partnerships
Summary Narrative:
Advanced Life Support capability was the most frequently mentioned service improvement opportunity. Multiple respondents discussed the potential for ALS engines or first-due ALS response, with several noting that the authority is surrounded by ALS providers and that growth in this service area would be beneficial. Some interviewees connected ALS expansion to better resource triage and more appropriate use of the firefighter brand in emergency medical responses.
Establishing a fire prevention bureau and capturing fee-based inspection revenue were identified by several stakeholders as both service improvements and revenue opportunities. Respondents mentioned the State Fire Marshal program, in-house prevention positions, and fee-based inspections as specific possibilities. The authority's role in creating fire-resilient communities through prevention messaging and mitigation efforts was also discussed.
Staffing and operational model improvements were frequently mentioned. Opportunities identified included addressing overall staffing levels, reducing or eliminating cross-staffing, optimizing station locations, and developing consistent first alarm assignments. Several respondents discussed grant opportunities, particularly SAFER grants for staffing and wildfire prevention funding.
Training enhancements and partnership development were also identified as opportunities.
Respondents mentioned interagency training opportunities, continuous training to keep personnel engaged and excited, and specific wildland-urban interface response training.
Partnership opportunities included working with Cal Poly, Hancock Fire, service organizations, and educational institutions for recruitment and community messaging. The use of a community academy or similar public engagement programs was suggested to improve understanding of firefighter roles and support recruitment efforts.
Question 4: What do you see as the top three critical issues faced by the Fire Authority today?
Key Themes:
▪ Staffing levels and sustainability
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 228
▪ Funding stability and mechanisms
▪ Geographic coverage and response times
▪ Training consistency and safety procedures
▪ Organizational culture and communication
Summary Narrative:
Staffing was identified as a critical issue by the majority of respondents. Concerns included overall staffing levels, minimum daily staffing (9 personnel), administrative and operational staffing adequacy, impacts on call volume, and the absence of a prevention department.
Several interviewees connected staffing challenges to overtime usage, deployment to outside incidents, and concerns about personnel exhaustion and local coverage during wildfire season.
Funding emerged as the second-most-common critical issue. Respondents discussed funding stability, consistency of funding mechanisms, and the complexities of the joint powers authority's financial structure. The unequal financial health between the two cities and challenges with governmental support from city councils were mentioned. Some stakeholders noted concerns about long-term financial sustainability and the need for fund balance policies.
Geographic coverage and response capability were frequently identified as critical issues.
Station locations, particularly the closure of Station 3 in Oceano, were discussed as affecting service coverage for multiple communities. Response times, first-due area boundaries, and the impact of the Oceano bridge closure on operational effectiveness were mentioned. The East boundary between city and county jurisdictions was noted as sometimes unclear, even to emergency services personnel.
Training consistency, safety procedures, and policy development were identified by several respondents as critical issues. Concerns included clear expectations and processes, policy versus guideline implementation, and overall safety consistency. Organizational culture was mentioned by multiple interviewees as a vital issue, with references to the mindset, the cultural integration of the three original agencies, and internal communication challenges.
Additional critical issues identified included fire prevention service gaps, contractual complexities, particularly involving Oceano and Cal Fire, community awareness and outreach, Advanced Life Support capability, mutual aid philosophy, and overcommitment to outside deployments, and jurisdictional coordination challenges.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 229
Question 5: If you could change one thing in the Fire Authority, what would it be?? Key Themes:
▪ Reopening and staffing Station 3 in Oceano
▪ Advanced Life Support capability implementation
▪ Fire prevention bureau establishment
▪ Policy and procedure formalization
▪ Staffing increases and compensation improvements
Summary Narrative:
Station 3 reopening was mentioned by multiple respondents as the single change they would prioritize. The station is currently closed due to infrastructure concerns. Still, its reopening would significantly enhance service coverage for Oceano, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande. The recent closure of the Oceano bridge was noted as presenting additional operational impacts. However, staff had been temporarily redeployed to maintain coverage.
Several respondents identified Advanced Life Support capability as their priority change.
This was connected to improved patient outcomes, better service to the community, and addressing what one interviewee characterized as a "huge disservice" to residents without ALS availability.
The transition from informal guidelines to formally adopted policies was identified as a critical change. Respondents discussed the use of informational bulletins as interim communication tools. They noted that the organization previously relied on Arroyo Grande's host city policy, which was punitive and not tailored to the fire service or state law. The development of agency-specific policies was identified as essential, and current leadership was credited with catalyzing this transition.
Fire prevention services and establishing a prevention bureau were identified by some stakeholders as their single priority change. Additional items mentioned included compensation and recruitment improvements to address affordable housing challenges and staff living outside the jurisdiction; reductions in administrative burden on minimal staff, particularly during peak workload seasons; and improved clerical support to enhance operational efficiency.
Question 6: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being excellent, how would you rate the relationship between the citizens and the Fire Authority?
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 230
Key Themes:
▪ Limited public awareness and understanding of FCFA's role ▪ Positive response satisfaction, but disconnected from resource constraints ▪ Need for improved outreach and public education
▪ Community appreciation is present but not widespread
Summary Narrative:
Ratings for citizen relationships ranged from 4 to 10, with most responses falling between 7 and 9. The lower ratings (4) were attributed primarily to poor public outreach and insufficient public understanding of the authority's structure, role, and funding. Multiple respondents noted ongoing confusion about the agency's name and organizational structure, and inadequate historical city support has contributed to limited public awareness.
Mid-range ratings (7-8) were explained by respondents as reflecting a disconnect between public satisfaction with emergency response and lack of awareness regarding resource and staffing constraints. Several interviewees noted that participation in public events generates positive community appreciation. Still, the broader public remains disconnected unless they directly need services. The community was characterized as satisfied with the response but unaware of operational challenges.
Higher ratings (9-10) came from respondents who focused on direct service interactions and noted no major complaints from the public. These respondents acknowledged community appreciation and characterized the relationship positively based on service delivery quality. However, even those providing higher ratings acknowledged room for improvement in public outreach and community engagement.
Question 7: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being excellent, how would you rate the relationship between management and labor within the Fire Authority? Key Themes:
▪ Significant improvement from previous leadership
▪ Good mutual respect and family-like atmosphere
▪ Positive impact of the battalion chief and the chief's changes ▪ Strong but continuing to improve
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 231
Summary Narrative:
Ratings for management-labor relationships ranged from 7 to 10, with most responses at 8 or higher. All respondents who provided specific ratings characterized the relationship as good or better, with notable improvement trends mentioned.
Multiple interviewees specifically referenced improvements since leadership changes, notably the addition of new battalion chiefs and the current Fire Chief. The relationship was characterized by mutual respect, with one respondent comparing it favorably to previous agencies and describing it as "like a family." Several stakeholders noted that while the relationship is strong, it continues to improve and has room for further development.
The rating of 7 was described as "fair," but with notable improvements from previous leadership recognized. Higher ratings (8-9) reflected strong relationships with acknowledgment that progress continues. The single rating of 10 highlighted the positive change from previous organizational structures and the family-like atmosphere currently in place.
Question 8: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being excellent, how would you rate the relationship between the city governments (Arroyo Grande & Grover Beach) and the Fire Authority? Key Themes:
▪ Marked improvement in recent relationships
▪ Variable based on budgetary and political factors
▪ Differing perspectives between leadership and line staff ▪ Fire services are viewed as a necessary expense
Summary Narrative:
Ratings for relationships with city governments ranged from 5 to 9, with greater variability than for other relationship questions. The most common ratings fell in the 6-9-point range, indicating diverse perspectives among stakeholders.
Lower ratings (5-6) were attributed to city boards viewing fire services as a "necessary evil" expense, and relationships sometimes being driven by convenience for the cities.
Engagement was described as improving, but with historical challenges. Line staff perspectives differed from leadership perspectives: staff noted limitations due to city politics and unequal financial health between the two cities, while leadership rated the relationship higher due to budgetary factors.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 232
Higher ratings (9) reflected marked improvement and recent budget cooperation. One respondent noted that previously, external fundraising was needed for basic training materials, but current relationships have improved significantly. Multiple interviewees giving ratings of 9 acknowledged some "back and forth" but characterized the overall relationship as positive and improving.
Question 9: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being excellent, how would you rate the relationship between the Fire Authority and CAL Fire?
Key Themes:
▪ Strong operational/floor-level relationships
▪ Strained management and contractual relationships
▪ Oceano contract creating tensions
▪ Recent decline in administrative-level cooperation
Summary Narrative:
Ratings for CAL Fire relationships showed the widest variation of any question, ranging from 5 to 8, with most responses at 5 or 8, depending on whether respondents focused on operational or administrative relationships.
Multiple respondents distinguished between operational and administrative levels of the relationship. Floor-level and boots-on-the-ground relationships were consistently described as strong, with ratings of 8 or higher. Good working relationships between operational staff were noted, with frontline firefighter cooperation characterized positively.
Management and political relationships were rated significantly lower (5) by multiple respondents. Administrative-level interaction was described as limited, with tensions particularly around contracts and staffing models. The Oceano situation was explicitly mentioned by several interviewees as a source of strain. One respondent noted that the relationship at higher levels had recently declined from "amazing" 6 months before, 5, while floor-level cooperation remained high at 8.
Remnants of old rivalries between agencies were reported to still be present among some personnel. However, they do not affect operational cooperation. Several respondents noted that contractual arrangements and county service district issues continue to create management-level challenges even as operational relationships remain productive.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 233
Question 10: On a scale of 1-10, 10 being excellent, how would you rate the level of emergency services provided by the Fire Authority?
Key Themes:
▪ High quality given resource limitations
▪ BLS-only status is viewed as a significant service gap ▪ Staffing constraints affecting response capability
▪ Professional, well-trained, responsive personnel
Summary Narrative:
Ratings for emergency service level ranged from 3 to 9, with most responses between 7 and 9. The variation reflected different priorities and perspectives on service adequacy.
The lowest rating (3) was based on staffing and response times falling short of standards, and on the absence of Advanced Life Support capability, which was characterized as a "huge disservice." This respondent provided specific examples of recent critical incidents in which delays in backup or ambulance arrival during concurrent calls resulted in patient deaths, with ambulance arrival times extending to 15 minutes.
Mid-range ratings (7-8) reflected high quality given current limitations. Respondents who provided these ratings acknowledged that personnel quality, training, and professionalism were strong but expressed dissatisfaction with the BLS-only status and understaffing.
Captains in particular noted frustration with service limitations despite high-quality personnel.
Higher ratings (9) focused on the responsiveness, training quality, and professionalism of staff. These respondents characterized the service as well-delivered within current parameters. One interviewee specifically noted that broader emergency communication issues, such as a recent water contamination event, were county-level problems rather than failures of the fire department. Several respondents pointed out that fire prevention services would rate lower than operational emergency response if assessed separately.
Additional Context: Specific Issues and Concerns
Station 3 (Oceano)
Multiple respondents noted that Station 3 is currently closed for operational reasons and is unfit for service delivery. Reopening this station was identified as significantly enhancing service coverage for Oceano, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande. The recent closure of the Oceano bridge was noted to have operational impacts. However, it is too recent to affect current data sets.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 234
Wildfire Risk
Ongoing wildfire concerns were mentioned by several stakeholders, particularly from an insurance standpoint. While respondents noted the area is not in a "super high" wildfire zone, they expressed a desire for more robust mitigation efforts and community involvement in wildfire preparation.
Overtime and Deployment
Interest was expressed in analyzing overtime usage versus full staffing, with concerns about cost-effectiveness and personnel exhaustion. Specific concerns were noted about the wildfire season, when many staff may be deployed elsewhere, potentially compromising local coverage and community protection.
Jurisdictional Complexities
East boundaries between city and county jurisdictions were noted as sometimes unclear, even to emergency services. Contractual tensions, particularly involving Oceano and Cal Fire, were described as affecting resource allocation and financial management.
Mutual Aid Philosophy
Some respondents criticized overcommitment to outside firefighting deployments and statewide wildfire assignments when such commitments leave the local community inadequately protected. A community-first philosophy for mutual aid decisions was advocated.
Policy Development Process
The transition from informal guidelines to formally adopted policies was discussed by multiple respondents. The use of informational bulletins as interim communication tools was noted. Previous reliance on the host city (Arroyo Grande) policy was described as punitive and not tailored to the fire service or state law, and new agency-specific policies have been developed. Current leadership was credited as a catalyst in this policy development transition.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 235
APPENDIX B: RISK CLASSIFICATION
The following are the risk classifications determined by incident type.
Fire
Low-Risk Incidents
These incidents are considered low risk and are minor in scope and intensity. It takes only one fire apparatus and crew to handle fires involving passenger vehicles, fences, trash or dumpsters, downed power lines, residential or commercial alarm investigations, or an odor investigation.
Moderate-Risk Incidents
These incidents are the initial alarm responses needed to handle a moderate-risk fire incident. They include smoke inside a building, small outdoor fires, commercial vehicle fires, a single-family home, lightning strikes on a building, automatic fire alarms at high-risk occupancies, or a hazardous materials pipeline fire.
High-Risk Incidents
These incidents require a second alarm response to handle a high-risk fire. They include smoke in high-life-hazard buildings (such as schools or skilled nursing facilities), residences with injured or trapped victims, multi-family apartments, or moderate-sized commercial or industrial sites.
Maximum-Risk Incidents
A third alarm response is required for managing a maximum-risk fire incident. These incidents include a hospital, assisted living facility, fire in an apartment building, high-rise building fire, large commercial or industrial occupancy, hazardous materials railcar, or storage occupancy. Incident assignments will involve additional command personnel, rotating off-duty staff, and mutual aid assistance for other critical tasks.
EMS Risks
Low-Risk Incidents
A single EMS unit can handle a low-risk EMS incident such as assessing one patient with a critical injury or illness, a non-life-threatening medical call, a lift assist, or standby.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 236
Moderate-Risk Incidents
A two-unit response is necessary to control or mitigate a moderate-risk EMS incident. It involves assessing and treating 1–2 patients with critical injuries or illnesses, or responding to a motor vehicle crash with 1–2 patients.
High-Risk Incidents
A multiple-unit response is necessary to manage or reduce a high-risk EMS incident. It involves 3–8 patients with injuries that vary from minor to critical. Patient care includes triage, BLS/ALS treatment, and coordinated patient transport.
Maximum-Risk Incidents
A multi-unit response is necessary to manage or reduce the risk of a maximum-risk EMS incident. It involves more than nine patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical.
Patient care will include triage, BLS/ALS treatment, and coordinated patient transport. If this is an active shooter incident, a casualty collection area unit might be needed to treat patients outside the hot zone.
Technical Rescue
Low-Risk Incidents
A single fire unit can handle a low-risk technical rescue incident involving minor rescues such as a child locked in a vehicle, an elevator entrapment, or a small mechanical afterhours rescue.
Moderate-Risk Incidents
A two-unit response is necessary to manage or reduce a moderate-risk technical rescue incident. Support from a technical rescue team is typically not needed. This type of incident involves a motor vehicle crash requiring patient extrication, the removal of a patient tangled in machinery or other equipment, or a person trapped by fallen power lines.
High-Risk Incidents
A multiple-unit response is needed to manage or reduce a high-risk technical rescue incident. Such incidents may involve comprehensive technical rescue efforts, including structural collapses or swift-water rescues. They might also involve multiple motor vehicles that need extrication, commercial passenger buses, or a vehicle colliding with a building.
Support typically comes from a technical rescue team. These incidents may require multiple alarms.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 237
Maximum-Risk Incidents
A multi-unit response is needed to manage or reduce a maximum-risk technical rescue incident. Support from a specialized technical rescue team is essential, and the incident may involve multiple operational locations. This type of incident includes full-scale technical rescue efforts, such as victims trapped or endangered by structural collapses, swift water, or earth cave-ins. It will require multiple alarms and could extend beyond the initial critical tasks. During a disaster or when additional alarms and command personnel are necessary, off-duty personnel may be recalled, or assistance from automatic or mutual aid may be requested.
Hazardous Materials
Low-Risk Incidents
A single fire unit can handle a low-risk hazardous materials incident involving carbon monoxide alarms and other unknown hazmat investigations without symptomatic victims.
This includes incidents involving less than 20 gallons of fuel, a natural gas meter incident, downed power lines, equipment issues, electrical problems, or attempted burning.
Automatic alarms that may originate from a hazardous materials incident.
Moderate-Risk Incidents
A two-unit response is needed to control or mitigate a moderate-risk hazardous materials incident. Usually, direct support from a hazardous materials team is not necessary. This type of incident includes a carbon monoxide alarm with symptomatic patients, a fuel spill of 20– 55 gallons, or a gas or petroleum product pipeline break that does not threaten any exposures.
High-Risk Incidents
A multi-unit response with a hazmat team is necessary to control or mitigate a high-risk hazardous materials incident. Support is required for a Level 2 hazmat event that involves setting up operational zones (hot, warm, cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. This response covers a hazardous materials release with 3–8 victims, gas leaks in a building, hazmat alarm alerts with victims, flammable gas or liquid pipeline ruptures with exposures, fuel spills over 55 gallons, fuel spills in underground drainage or sewer systems, transportation or industrial chemical leaks, or radiological incidents. Additional help may be needed to extend operations beyond the critical tasks identified.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 238
Maximum-Risk Incidents
A multi-unit response is necessary to manage or contain a maximum-risk hazardous materials incident. Support from an on-duty hazmat team and their specialized equipment is required. This type of incident involves setting up operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and deploying multiple support divisions and groups. Examples include nine or more contaminated or exposed victims, a large storage tank failure, a hazmat railcar failure, or a weapons of mass destruction incident. The response will likely involve multiple alarms and could extend beyond the initial critical tasks. Recall of off-duty personnel or assistance from automatic or mutual aid may be needed during a disaster or when additional alarms and command staff are required.
Wildland Urban Interface
Low-Risk Incidents
A single fire unit can handle a low-risk wildland firefighting incident that is minor in scope, with no threat to structures and no red-flag conditions. This includes low-risk wildland or grass fires, such as outdoor smoke investigations, illegal or controlled burns, or small vegetation fires.
Moderate-Risk Incidents
Multiple units are required to handle a moderate-risk wildland firefighting incident involving a significant fire in the brush, brush pile at a chipping site, grass, or cultivated vegetation.
Red-flag conditions are not present, and structures may or may not be at risk.
High-Risk Incidents
Multiple units or alarms are necessary to handle a high-risk wildland firefighting incident.
The level correlates with red-flag warnings and involves structures that may or may not be threatened. This fire includes a significant wildfire in brush, grasses, or cultivated vegetation, as well as woodland areas. Additional alarm assignments, command staff, recall of off-duty personnel, and mutual or automatic aid assistance may require extending operations beyond the initial critical tasks.
Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 239
APPENDIX C: TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area Map ................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Organizational Chart........................................................................................................5 Figure 3: Revenues/Expenditures Summary...................................................................................9 Figure 4: Revenue Sources ............................................................................................................10 Figure 5: Expenditures by Category .............................................................................................10 Figure 6: NFPA 1730 Inspection Frequency..................................................................................15 Figure 7: Occupancy Risk Classifications Example.....................................................................16 Figure 8: Leading Causes of Death in SLO County (2020–2022)................................................19 Figure 9: Years of Life Lost (All) in SLO County, 2023 ...................................................................20 Figure 10: General Training Competencies.................................................................................27 Figure 11: Drill-type & Frequency ..................................................................................................29 Figure 12: Administrative Staff Full-Time Equivalent Count.........................................................32 Figure 13: Fire Prevention Staff Full-Time Equivalent Count........................................................33 Figure 14: Operations Staff ............................................................................................................33 Figure 15: Station Units & Staffing Levels.......................................................................................34 Figure 16: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition .................................................40 Figure 17: Criteria Used to Determine Apparatus & Vehicle Condition ...................................44 Figure 18: FCFA Fleet Inventory (2024) .........................................................................................45 Figure 19: FCFA Administrative, Command, and Specialized Vehicles Inventory (2024).......46 Figure 20: FCFA Population Estimates...........................................................................................50 Figure 21: Age Risks.........................................................................................................................53 Figure 22: Population without Health Insurance..........................................................................56 Figure 23: Education.......................................................................................................................57 Figure 24: Race and Ethnicity........................................................................................................58 Figure 25: Year Structures Built.......................................................................................................59 Figure 26: Housing Units..................................................................................................................60 Figure 27: Average Temperatures ................................................................................................62 Figure 28: National Weather Service Heat Index Chart .............................................................63 Figure 29: Average Precipitation ..................................................................................................64 Figure 30: Drought Conditions (2011 to 2025)..............................................................................65 Figure 31: Drought Conditions – San Luis Obispo County and California.................................66 Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 240
Figure 32: Prevailing Winds.............................................................................................................67 Figure 33: Average Monthly Wind Speeds...................................................................................68 Figure 34: Fire Hazard Severity Zones............................................................................................71 Figure 35: FCFA Flood Zones..........................................................................................................73 Figure 36: Historic Earthquake Faults ............................................................................................75 Figure 37: Traffic Count ..................................................................................................................78 Figure 38: Streets and Highways in FCFA......................................................................................79 Figure 39: Fire Hydrant Protected Areas ......................................................................................82 Figure 40: Electrical Power Distribution.........................................................................................84 Figure 41: Natural Gas Transmission and High-Pressure Distribution Lines.................................86 Figure 42: Railway Line and Crossings ..........................................................................................88 Figure 43: Educational Occupancies...........................................................................................91 Figure 44: Assembly Occupancies ...............................................................................................92 Figure 45: Medical and Care Centers..........................................................................................94 Figure 46: Buildings Three or More Stories in Height.....................................................................97 Figure 47: Buildings Greater Than 50,000 Square Feet................................................................99 Figure 48: FCFA Property & Contents Loss per 1,000 People (2020–2023)..............................101 Figure 49: Fires per 1,000 Population (2020–2023) .....................................................................102 Figure 50: Intentionally Set Fires (2021–2024) .............................................................................102 Figure 51: Three-Axis Risk Classification Process.........................................................................104 Figure 52: Risk Scoring System......................................................................................................105 Figure 53: Probability or Likelihood of Occurrence...................................................................106 Figure 54: Consequences to the Community............................................................................106 Figure 55: Impact on Operational Forces..................................................................................107 Figure 56: Fire Response Risk Assessment ...................................................................................108 Figure 57: Fire Three-Axis Risk Classifications ..............................................................................108 Figure 58: EMS Response Risk Assessment ..................................................................................109 Figure 59: EMS Three-Axis Risk Classifications.............................................................................109 Figure 60: Technical Rescue Response Risk Assessment...........................................................110 Figure 61: Technical Rescue Three-Axis Risk Classifications......................................................110 Figure 62: Hazardous Materials Response Risk Assessment ......................................................111 Figure 63: Hazardous Materials Three-Axis Risk Classifications.................................................111 Figure 64: Wildland Fires Response Risk Assessment..................................................................112 Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 241
Figure 65: Wildland Fires 3-Axis Risk Classifications ....................................................................112 Figure 66: Data Skew....................................................................................................................115 Figure 67: FCFA Travel and Total Time Data Skew ....................................................................116 Figure 68: Total Incident Count (2019–2024)..............................................................................118 Figure 69: Incident Density (2019–2024) .....................................................................................120 Figure 70: EMS Incident Relative Density (2019–2024) ..............................................................121 Figure 71: Fire Incident Locations (2019–2024) ..........................................................................122 Figure 72: Top Ten Common Incident Addresses (2019–2024) ................................................123 Figure 73: Annual Incident Volume (2019–2024).......................................................................124 Figure 74: Incident Volume by Month (2019–2024)...................................................................125 Figure 75: Weekday Call Distribution (2019–2024).....................................................................126 Figure 76: Month & Day Distribution (2019–2024) ......................................................................126 Figure 77: Incident Distribution by Hour (2019–2024).................................................................127 Figure 78: Day & Hour Distribution (2019–2024) .........................................................................128 Figure 79: 5-Mile Travel Distance (In-Service Stations)..............................................................130 Figure 80: 1.5 Mile Travel Distance from Staffed Stations .........................................................131 Figure 81: 2.5 Mile Truck Travel Distance (From Station 1)........................................................132 Figure 82: Incidents by Type Volume by Apparatus Type (2019–2024) ..................................133 Figure 83: Annual Incident Volume Primary Units (2019–2024) ................................................134 Figure 84: Average Time on Incidents by Apparatus Type (2019–2024).................................135 Figure 85: Unit Hour Utilization (2023–2024) ................................................................................137 Figure 86: FCFA Concurrent Incident Responses (2019–2024).................................................138 Figure 87: Multiple Unit Responses (2019–2024).........................................................................138 Figure 88: Incident Lifecycle........................................................................................................140 Figure 89: Incident Segment KPIs................................................................................................141 Figure 90: Call Processing by NFIRS Type (2019–2024) ..............................................................143 Figure 91: Call Processing by Hour (2019–2024).........................................................................144 Figure 92: Turnout Time by Type and Day/Night (2019–2024)..................................................145 Figure 93: Turnout Time by Year & Grouping (2019–2024)........................................................146 Figure 94: Turnout Time by Unit & Shift (2019–2024)...................................................................147 Figure 95: Turnout Time by Hour (2019–2024).............................................................................148 Figure 96: FCFA 4-Minute Predicted Travel ................................................................................150 Figure 97: FCFA 8-Minute Predicted Travel ................................................................................151 Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 242
Figure 98: First Due Travel by Type and Area (2019–2024) .......................................................152 Figure 99: Annual First Due Travel Times by Category (2019–2024).........................................153 Figure 100: Travel Time by Hour (2019–2024)..............................................................................154 Figure 101: 8-Minute Response Force Model.............................................................................155 Figure 102: First Three Priority Units Travel (2019–2024) ..............................................................156 Figure 103: Agency Response Time by Political Subdivision & Type (2019–2024)..................157 Figure 104: Annual Agency Performance by Category (2019–2024).....................................158 Figure 105: Agency Performance by Hour (2019–2024)...........................................................159 Figure 106: Total Response Time by Political Subdivision & Type (2019–2024)........................160 Figure 107: Annual Total Response Performance by Category (2019–2024).........................161 Figure 108: Total Response Time Performance by Hour (2019–2024)......................................162 Figure 109: 20-Year Population Forecast with 95% Confidence Bands ..................................163 Figure 110: 2020 Population Distribution.....................................................................................165 Figure 111: Service Demand Projection to 2032 .......................................................................166 Figure 112: Automatic and Mutual Aid Resources (Table) ......................................................168 Figure 113: Automatic and Mutual Aid Resources (Map)........................................................169 Figure 114: 4-Minute Travel from all Area Stations.....................................................................171 Figure 115: 8-Minute Travel Area Stations ..................................................................................172 Figure 116: Automatic Aid Resources Available to FCFA ........................................................174 Figure 117: Staffing Recommendation Based on Risk ..............................................................179 Figure 118: Fire Response Critical Tasking ..................................................................................180 Figure 119: Emergency Medical Services Critical Tasking........................................................181 Figure 120: Wildland/WUI Fire Critical Tasking............................................................................181 Figure 121: Technical Rescue Critical Tasking ...........................................................................182 Figure 122: Hazmat Critical Tasking ............................................................................................182 Figure 123: Airport Rescue/Firefighting.......................................................................................183 Figure 124: Available Units...........................................................................................................184 Figure 125: Example of the FCFA Fire & EMS Dispatch Plan.....................................................185 Figure 126: Emergency Medical Assignments by Risk...............................................................185 Figure 127: Fire Alarm Assignments by Risk.................................................................................186 Figure 128: Wildland/WUI Assignments by Risk ..........................................................................187 Figure 129: Technical Rescue Assignments by Risk ...................................................................187 Figure 130: Hazardous Materials Assignments by Risk...............................................................188 Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis Five Cities Fire Authority 243
Figure 131: Aircraft Rescue/Firefighting by Risk .........................................................................188 Figure 132: Response Time Standards & Goal Examples..........................................................190 Figure 133: Deming Cycle............................................................................................................192 Figure 134: Incident Segments ....................................................................................................194 Figure 135: Performance Chart Example...................................................................................196 Figure 136: Methodology Overview ...........................................................................................205 Figure 137: Performance Statements .........................................................................................221