It is a big mistake to take this money and reduce 11 fire fighters.

I do not agree with the decision.

Respectfully

Great,now Menlo Park Fire and other surrounding agencies will have to pick up their calls for service. Thanks cheap and non-responsive Palo Alto City Council. All surrounding agencies should stand together and stop mutual aid period...

I spoke last night at city council against firefighter reductions. I feel strongly that if there is a MAJOR DISASTER we will all be at a loss.
If Stanford gets approval for there new major construction maybe they can pay this forward, by supporting extra firefighters.

Of course they did. Nothing like power to disconnect from reality.

Who needs fire fighters when the Bay Area is reduced to ashes with new fires springing up daily?

Remember money management and responsibility?

Just great. As a resident of a highly flammable Eichler neighborhood, I am appalled at the idiocy of our council. Have we learned NOTHING in the last week? Coffey Park wasn't supposed to burn, but it did. Just this morning, we hear of a house fire in Boulder Creek starting a wildlands fire. I'll have to stock up on hoses and extinguishers.

"Mayor Greg Scharff said he was heartened by the fact that none of the firefighters who opposed the staffing changes attended the public hearing -- which began at about 11:30 p.m. Monday -- to voice their opposition."

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Is the sincerity or seriousness of a person's position on a matter determined by attendance at CC? I can think of lots of good reasons why a firefighter might not be at 550 Hamilton Ave on a Monday night. Especially this week.

Not being in attendance does not equate to support of a controversial issue that is up for a vote. Residents should take note that Mayor Scharff apparently thinks it does. Wow.

There is just so much left out of this article. With the worst fire disaster in California history, it seems like an "interesting" time to reduce fire staff. But is a good thing or a bad thing? Can't tell from this article. Here are my issues with the article;
1) Stanford wants to pay less. Are they putting up more of their own resources that might mean the combined Stanford Palo Alto fire capability is higher? Maybe yes, maybe no. Can't tell.
2) The daughter of a friend is a parametric. Many fire departments are training firefighters as paramedics so they don't need dedicated paramedics. Clearly that is what we are doing. Leaving aside the possibility of needing both paramedics and firefighters at the same time, the issue raised by the union, are there more or less firefighters in the new plan? Can't tell from the article. There are less total fire plus paramedics but with dedicated paramedics being zero on the new plan, how many fire fighters are we left with? Can't tell.

It is remarkable that agreement with the Firefighters takes precedence over what is in the best interests of the residents, businesses and property owners of the City.

As raised by Mr. Balin how can there be an response by the City to the Stanford GUP DEIR in the area of public services (fire and emergency services) with this "innovative staffing model"? Stated plainly where is the additional staffing needed to operate a ladder truck going to come from for calls for assistance from high rise development?

The decision was also made without relation to the adoption earlier of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which indicates that mitigation of the wildland fire risk will come from the Fire Department without any mention of this reduced staffing model. Who is fooling who?

Left unanswered by the Chief and Council was the question of what if there are multiple requests for assistance and those who would furnish mutual aid are also involved?

Reducing by 1 body during the day and 3 bodies at night is misleading. With additional cross staffing there will be multiple engines gone throughout the day running ambulance calls while leaving a station empty. It is really sad how the city council voted unanimously in favor of this and this new model
Does not seem sustainable long term.

The city needs to continue to cut firefighter positions. We hardly have any fires these days and one or two stations would be more than enough for our fire fighting needs. The job that the "firefighters' are trying to morph themselves into - is to be massively overpaid and over compensated EMTs and ambulance drivers.

The city should move to outsource all EMT and ambulance services given the massive and growing unfunded pension liabilities that are given to "firefighters" [portion removed.]

Please continue to cut these positions and outsource to save some money so the city can have animal shelters and community pools and clean streets, and not just over-compensated people who [portion removed] retire early.

"Mayor Greg Scharff said he was heartened by the fact that none of the firefighters who opposed the staffing changes attended the public hearing -- which began at about 11:30 p.m. Monday"

The right wing has taken to making remarks about the size of the audience (like their leader in DC?) and to use that as an excuse to support developers. I have heard this sentiment also expressed by Susan Monk (worked for Kniss and uses her style) on the Planning Commission, also by Rosenblum (aka Mr Palantir).
Yes, the right wing is organized.

I thought the city supported the green initiative? I thought saving the environment meant something to the council? Not a single council member last night inquired how this new deployment would affect our carbon footprint. In speaking with the local fire station paramedic emt people this afternoon downtown, they told me that "cross-staffing means they will be driving fire engines and ambulances in "tandem" together everywhere.

When they are out in public, training, performing building inspections, etc, the extra ambulances will now be driven by the third person on the crew, everywhere they go. He explained this is because they can take either vehicle to a call, a fire engine OR and ambulance, but they have to find a place to park the vehicle and then move over all their gear to the truck that they are using to respond in. They must leave the unattended fire vehicle for a few hours until they complete the call and come back to retrieve it. Won't that take time to do? I would think that would cause a significant delay in responding to a call by having to find a place to park a fire engine,especially with such limited parking throughout the city.

Can someone explain how driving double the amount of fire vehicles per crew is helping the environment? Extra diesel fuel being burned every day, more tires worn out, probably more wear and tear on vehicles, but most importantly, a larger carbon footprint. How is that helping our community?

When you have million and half dollars taken from your budget, you find the funds other ways or you cut back on employees. The city council and fire chief are just doing what you hired or elected them to do. It's a tough call.
I don't put much thought in what the fire union has to say.

[Portion removed.] Anyone who has ever sacrificed their life for another being (firefighter, ems, police, military), would know that cutting one or three or eleven positions from your local fire service could have devastating effects. "Over compensate", really, I bet you've never had the misfortune of having to pick up the phone and dial 911 in hopes of having the most amount of amazing, skilled, qualified people by your side and wishing they were there in a matter of a few seconds. [Portion removed.]

Here is the laymens version of this article... Understand fire and police are a city's insurance policy against calamity. That being said, how much insurance do you require?

Here is a scenario....

If 3 simultaneous medical calls occur, (happens more often than you think) this is the result...

Station 1 is gone on a call (e61 and medic 61)
Station 2 (cross staff ambulance) and station 3 gone
station 4 (cross staff ambulance) and station 5 gone

what is left is station 6 (truck, engine and ambulance)

if this occurrs after 8pm then station 6 ambulance is dispatched leaving only a truck and engine

bear in mind a full medical call lasts 45 minutes for an engine and 90 for an ambulance.

Palo Altans...how much insurance do you require?

in the last 10 years the call volume has doubled from 5000/year to 10,000/year

staffing has decreased from 31 to 26/24. this work environment leads to a stepping stone department and increased injuries. be prepared to end up spending more in the long run as the money to train new ff's goes bye bye when they leave and overtime skyrockets as fatigued bodies break.

I have spoken, heed the warning!

@brass tax
You can do "what if" scenarios all day long. The fire budget is a million and half dollars smaller. Either find the money in other funds or cut employees. It's a tought call, but the fire chief and city council are doing their job. Doing what they were hired or elected to do. You can't fault them.

And that is totally fine but they are lying to the public about keeping the same level of service. Service and response times will drop. Stations will be browned out due to being on ambulance calls. Cutting is fine but don’t lie about it.

Ha, maybe they’ll have to work harder. Tiny violins......

This sounds like a truly horrible decision. Please don't cut.

Please read the informative response that a retired PAFD firefighter wrote in the first article that came out on Oct. 6.