BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Palo Alto Fire Chief Geo Blackshire tried to reassure a gathering of residents on Thursday that his department is taking a systemic, data-driven approach to emergency responses, but the loudest applause of the night was for a retired firefighter who implored the city to put an engine at every station.
“It’s about time that we spend the money and get fire protection full-time in this city,” retired fire Capt. Chris Jackson said.
Fire Station #4, at the corner of E. Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road, has been without an engine since July 2020 due to pandemic-era budget cuts.
More and more residents have learned about the absence in recent weeks, and a petition to bring back the engine had 420 signatures as of Thursday night.
In response, Blackshire had a community meeting down the street from the fire station at the Mitchell Park Community Center with Mayor Ed Lauing and City Manager Ed Shikada.
Blackshire said the city aims to respond to 90% of calls in less than eight minutes using a program that predicts where calls come in based on historical data.
“There’s no particular part of the city that’s safer than the other,” he said.
Residents had questions about delays caused by engines crossing the train tracks and future apartments planned at the southern end of the city.
Resident Penny Ellson said she’s worried during construction, pointing to an eight-alarm fire that tore through apartments going up next to Redwood City in June.
“That first response is critically important,” Ellson said.
Blackshire acknowledged that structures are vulnerable before sprinklers are installed. But he said in any area, there’s no guarantee that the local engine will be available.
“Sometimes we have engines going all the way across the city, and that’s why I try to put an emphasis on the system,” Blackshire said. Shikada said Fire Marshal Tamara Jasso ensures that new buildings are meeting strict building codes, and that’s why some developers complain about the slow “Palo Alto process.”
Fire Station #4 is getting rebuilt with five dorms and space for both an engine and an ambulance, Blackshire said.
As a short-term measure, Shikada said he is recommending council add one position to the fire department on Feb. 24 so Fire Station #4 can have three firefighters at a time.
“We appreciate that this is an urgent issue,” Shikada said.
Depending on the call type, firefighters would choose to take out either an ambulance or an engine.
Blackshire said this model, called “cross-staffing,” isn’t perfect, but it’s a way to get an engine back at the station in 30 to 60 days.
An ambulance at the station is used 20% of the time, which means a fire engine would be available around 80% of the time, Blackshire said.
Adding one position will cost the city about $1 million per year, Shikada said.
Council can make more changes during budget discussions in May and June, Shikada said.
The city is estimating a $10 million budget deficit because sales tax hasn’t rebounded as hoped for coming out of Covid, and the economy is volatile, Shikada said.
Joseph Penko, president of the local firefighter’s union, is against cross-staffing. He wants the city to man the engine with overtime shifts instead.
After the meeting, resident Ken Allen said he believes the city will listen because of the strong turnout.
“It’s pretty obvious that there is a lot of concern. We have over 100 people here. That’s unusual for a neighborhood meeting,” Allen said.
Allen said he grew up next to an Eichler in Marin County that burned down in 10 minutes, so he understands his neighbors’ fears. He was scared to watch the CZU Lightning Complex fires burning in the Santa Cruz Mountains in August 2020 and the destruction in Los Angeles last month.
“I hope it never happens here,” he said.
The Plan is a whitewash. There is NO promise of an Engine to be purchased for Fire Station 4. There is NO promise of 24/7 manning of said Engine, only a part time staffing alluded to. The engine will be unable to answer fire calls unless three firemen are in the station, three being required by law. So when the ambulance is out, the remaining two firefighters are helpless to answer a fire call. We had 7 active Fire Engines in 2008; today we have only five active engines. More importantly, the fire crews of Palo Alto have been gutted over the past 17 years. Skeleton crews man the stations with mandatory overtime. Overtime gets old so fire fighters have left Palo Alto for surrounding communities. Where is the Engine we had since 1954? Who determined five years ago that, NAW! FS4 doesn’t need an engine anymore! Are not the children of Palo Alto precious to City Hall? THere are twelve schools within a five block radius of FS 4 which are worthy of a 90 second response from an engine a few blocks away at FS4. Instead, our children are put at risk by the present bogus response policy from a Fire Station miles away, across a railroad track with a train passing by, bucking rush hour to get to our children. Imagine giving the same presentation, given to south Palo Alto on Thursday, to the Stanford community. Tell THEM that they don’t need a fire engine on campus! Tell THEM it is fine to have a fire station answer their call from miles away! Would they take comfort in the latter ridiculous reassurances? Of course, the City would never tell Stanford that THEIR community will be less safe and more vulnerable. Yet, the City has told us as much and left south Palo Alto at great risk. This is the land of tightly packed tinderboxes: shake roofs, Eichlers susceptible to flashover, old gas lines, wooden fences. When Southie burns it will quickly become an inferno. The real issue is that the City does not want to fund two more Fire Engines or many more fire fighters. There were 35 more fire fighters in 2008 than the 85 on staff now. The fire fighters are a subset of the 110 fire department employees listed on the 2025 budget, (the most important group.) There are homes, trails, bicyclists, a park with visitors, families with children in the Palo Alto hills. Where is the siren warning them of fire? Where is our HAZMAT unit? Why did the City not buy a new Engine with insurance money when the Engine was totalled on 101 seven years ago? OH! Palo Alto was self insured which means we didn’t have any insurance. So what to do? They CLOSED Fire Station 4. (No engine, no staff needing a salary. Money saved is money earned!) What does COVID have to do with slimming fire services? We are a wealthy community; our cup runneth over!
We have a 1.2 billion dollar budget with an 18.5% reserve required. That leaves over 900 million dollars to buy a fire engine and hire many, many more fire fighters.
South Palo Alto demands a new Fire Engine to be permanently housed at Fire Station 4 at Middlefield and East Meadow. We demand 24/7, three man staffing. The Engine must remain housed at FS4, not to be temporarily (but really permanently) loaned out to another Station; we have residents across the street from FS who, together, will check three times a day to make sure our Fire Engine is living there. (Buy Fire Station 8 their own engine, as the hills are ripe for a frightening, uncontrolled blaze.) Jettison three or four of the 13 helpers in the city manager’s direct employ to pay for fire fighters. Money well spent! We are worth the expenditure here in south Palo Alto. Before the City funds anything else, ANYTHING ELSE, they must fund public safety; it is their primary mandate from the voters. We are worth it; our property is worth it; our school children are worth it. We demand legitimate, abundant and redundant fire protection for all of us in south Palo Alto who call this our HOME.
CeCi makes excellent points about how our safety should come first. One wonders who decided not to fund our protection and how city priorities are set. Common sense should outweigh the City Priority Surveys with their pre-set choices that never get more than 500 responses in a city of 66,000.
Most of us would agree it’s no contest between funding fire protection than, say, Retail Consultants with no local knowledge who are seemingly clueless about what neighboring towns have done to revitalize their downtown. And it it’s not new sidewalks and again “redesigning” Cal Ave or providing sleeping pods.
Have we ever considered if the plan is to let South Palo Alto burn and fill it with new construction? It sure would increase the tax base, plus I’m sure they’d have (get) to hire consultants to plan it all out…and of course there’d be construction projects too, to give out with the City’s highly questionable bidding process which as we have seen, when questioned by a brave (former) councilmember that somehow has not been brainwashed by the City Manager, has the City Attorney squirming and yelling “BROWN ACT! STOP TALKING! BROWN ACT!!” We all know the City of Palo Also has no interest in ANYTHING other than (a) consultants and (b) construction contracts. What’s with that, anyway?
This article headline should be corrected to say the truth: “The residents of South Palo Alto demand A firetruck” Because there is currently NO STAFFED FIRETRUCK in the section of town containing hundreds of Eichlers. It’s also where many of our elderly and new immigrant families live – and the 12 schools noted above. This would never happen north of Oregon. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. Chief Blackshire has ignored our questions for years. Now he appears to be lying with data. What is the response data for South PA? Isolate that data because I’ll bet the average response time here is much higher.
An option is to submit a Public Records Request to get the data – for example, could request all response times then analyze for north of Oregon vs. south of Oregon. Would you all at the Post want to do it? Or one of our wonderful, smart retirees who have the time? Only problem is that the City has a history of not responding fully to Public Records Requests, of course to benefit their (often untrue) narrative. So disgusting. But by working together, we could collect who called 911 when – if the City didn’t provide that data for any of those reported calls, one of our wonderful resident lawyers should file suit against the City for violation of Public Records Request laws. They’ll get attorneys fees when successful! Although…then it’s a matter of getting the City of Palo Alto to pay. Speaking of which…where is my Green class action settlement check?!
The article headline should be corrected to say the truth which is “Residents of South Palo Alto Demand A firetruck” There is NO STAFFED FIRETRUCK SOUTH OF OREGON and EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL/ALMA.
Thousands of elderly and vulnerable people living in Eichlers known to burn in 4 minutes. Many hardworking immigrant families new to the US and unaware this quietly happened years ago. Plus the 12 schools noted above that are left unprotected.
Shame on the Fire Chief for citing city-wide data. Split out the response times for this area alone. Reporting on this is overdue as is representation by our City Council. Pat Burt, Greer, Julie LH – where is your righteous outrage on this issue? It happened under your watch. Imagine the outrage and response had the firetrucks been quietly removed from the Community Center area.