|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new transit hub, an upstream water-detention basin for San Francisquito Creek and 594 housing units are all included in a list of “community benefits” Stanford University could be asked to provide to get the green light for its proposed hospital and shopping center expansions, city officials said Saturday.
The comprehensive list, which the City Council discussed at a study session Saturday morning, includes 58 items city officials consider to be “on the table” in their negotiations with Stanford University, which plans to renovate its medical facilities and expand Stanford Shopping Center.
The list only includes items that could be mitigations to get all possibilities “on the table” for discussion — not everything would be required, city officials emphasized.
While Stanford is already expected to pay the city about $19 million in impact fees for the two expansion projects, council members indicated Saturday that the university will have to add more community benefits to its package to get the city’s approval.
The extra mitigations are because Stanford is seeking approval for far larger expansions than existing city zoning would allow, council members said. Most of the focus Saturday was on the $3.5 billion proposed expansion of the Stanford Medical Center, Stanford Hospital and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital.
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) officials and pediatricians from the Lucile Packard repeated earlier arguments that the biggest benefit to the community would be the hospital facilities themselves.
Michael Peterson, Stanford’s vice president for special projects, said in addition to urgent upgrades needed for seismic safety, the two hospitals had to turn away 870 patients in 2007 and 924 patients in 2008. The expanded facilities would make it easier for Palo Altans to get world-class medical care.
“The most critical community benefit is the provision of high-quality care to Palo Alto and surrounding communities,” Peterson said. “That, in my view, is the most significant benefit for us to consider.”
But council members had other ideas. While acknowledging that the hospitals would make great contributions to Palo Alto and the surrounding area, the council also made it clear that Stanford would have to take some responsibility for the stress the influx of workers and cars would place on the city’s neighborhoods, streets and emergency-response departments.
Councilman Pat Burt said the question isn’t whether other community benefits would be required, but which benefits Stanford should be asked to provide. The hospital facilities would expand by 1.3 million square feet of space while Shopping Center would add 240,000 square feet of space and a new hotel.
“I don’t know why we have to revisit the fundamental concept of why community benefits are appropriate,” Burt said in response to Peterson’s comments. “We should be having a discussion on what’s the appropriate scale, the highest priority, the best cost-benefit for applicants and the community.”
“These projects are way beyond the permissible zoning,” he added.
The list of community benefits presented by city staff includes 594 units of housing; development of a small park area equipped with benches, lighting and flower borders — near the shopping center; provision of free psychiatric services at the Opportunity Center; extension of Stanford’s Marguerite bus service into Palo Alto; contribution of funds for the city’s new public safety building; and assistance with flood-control improvements relating to San Francisquito Creek.
Mayor Peter Drekmeier said Stanford’s assistance with the creek project would be a particularly critical consideration for him. Drekmeier sits on the Board of Directors of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which is charged with improving flood control around the creek. The authority is currently analyzing the possibility of building a detention basin upstream, on or near Stanford land, to reduce the amount of water flowing to Palo Alto and East Palo Alto during major storms.
“The number-one thing on the list for me is cooperation from Stanford on potential flood waters for the San Francisquito Creek,” Drekmeier said. “That would go a long way to garnering community support.”
Other council members called for even more housing than the staff report calls for. Council members Greg Schmid and Yoriko Kishimoto both noted that while the benefits of the expanded hospitals would be considerable, they would also be widely dispersed throughout the region. But the negative impacts of the two projects would fall squarely on Palo Alto.
“I think the starting point for discussion is 1,000 units, not 590, as a negotiation point,” Schmid said.
Other proposed community benefits in the city’s list are: funds to upgrade El Camino Park field areas to artificial turf; a new pedestrian path between the medical center and the shopping center; and open-space protection for other areas owned by Stanford.
Some city residents and Stanford physicians argued Saturday that the city is asking for too much.
“Which straw will break the camel’s back? I’m not sure,” said Dr. Bruce Baker, a member of the community resource group for Stanford’s general use permit (GUP).
“It is precisely the wrong time to raise taxes and fees on anything. We know it’s precisely the wrong time to solve public budgetary problems on the back of our businesses,” he said.
The council’s discussion of community benefits for the projects will continue at its March 30 meeting. The environmental-impact report for the two Stanford projects is expected to be completed later this spring.
Are you paying attention, Menlo Park staff and council. Better be prepared to schedule several study sessions and public hearings when the EIR is released, as MP will get overwhelmed by the expansion impacts.
I think it’s time for Stanford to declare it’s independence from Palo Alto. Keep all it’s retail tax dollars from the shopping centre and take it’s firefighters and police back.
The other alternative would be to build a state of the art hospital in Redwood City next to their new medical clinic. Palo Alto is going too far with it’s list of so called community benefits!!
Here’s another alternative site for a new Stanford Hospital. Since Roche will be moving from the Stanford land bounded by Arastradero Road, Hillview and Foothill Expressway; that would make an excellent site for a proposed huge expanded hospital complex. Try it you’ll like it!!!
As usual Drekmeier and the council feel that Stanford is an ATM or a cash machine to be milked everytime PA needs money–some of these “mitigations” are outrageous.
I understand the traffic and housing issued–but trying to extort money for the-pie-in-the-sky public safety building, the creek and some of these other demands are going way overboard.
Drekmeier is clueless as usual when it comes to dealing with Stanford and as usual he is out of his league and focused on his “environmental” agenda over what is best for everyone concerned
“As usual Drekmeier and the council feel that Stanford is an ATM or a cash machine to be milked everytime PA needs money”
Why not?…the Council is reflexive Dem (socialist) in their thinking.
Soaking the rich is the current paradigm in Washington, too. Killing the golden goose is the underlying philosophy of socialism.
Drekmeier is similar to Obama, except that he does not need a teleprompter to soak the rich, and kill off the economic engine of prosperity.
Stanford is an asset to Palo Alto, and part of the reason PA property values are so high. Certainly there are more lovely Peninsula neighborhoods (Burlingame or Los Altos), but Palo Alto has Stanford. And that world-class institution adds value to your town.
SU must, and will continue, to change. Certainly, any development must be done carefully. But, Palo Alto’s absurd demands take away all of the town’s credibility in that negotiation. At best, Palo Alto’s stance is just childish (i.e., “Give me any goodies I ask for, or I’ll scream and kick”). At worst, the demands sound like blackmail.
I’ve lived on the Peninsula for 12 years, and Palo Alto’s constant whining is unique to the area, and it is predictably bizarre. The script never changes.
Maybe a TV soap about the town’s whining politics (“Desperate Homeowners” “As the Stomach Turns”) would earn the town enough royalties to build what they really want…a wall around it, sort of like the US/Mexico border wall (hmmmm). However, a Palo Alto/Stanford soap opera would be too boring for TV (no ratings value).
And it’s boring here in this press. Does this newspaper/website have any other local stories? Because, this one is just not interesting anymore.
In the past 15 months, Stanford’s Medical Center project estimate has gone from $1B+ to $2B, now $3.5B. In the meantime, their tune has stayed the same: the Medical Center is the community benefit, anything else is gouging.
This is NOT Stanford building community with its neighbors. This is Stanford v. Palo Alto with Stanford running the clock, a clock against itself. By offering nothing to mitigate the huge housing imbalance Stanford is trying to lob 100% into Palo Alto’s lap, Stanford’s massive project is roaring down the road in a game of ‘Chicken’ with Palo Alto Councilmembers. This is one time I hope Councilmembers have the backbone to resist Stanford’s bullying tactics and call Stanford’s bluff.
When Stanford volunteers to meet Palo Alto’s reasonable mitigation requests in exchange for massively exceeding zoning requirements, then OK, the Palo Alto community will fall in line with you. Otherwise, no expansion. Sorry Stanford, you may be foiled by your own selfish strategic game-playing.
Time is money. Chop, chop.
I tend to agree with Hong So.
It seems like Stanford is always trying to jam a size 11 project into a size 7 shoe, then it blames Palo Alto for not ‘making it happen.’
There comes a tipping point where Stanford just looks selfish. Where is the community-building Stanford seems to value but rarely acts on?
Stanford Hospital retrofit is mandated by law. As times change,so do the way hospital’s deal with patients. As you may or may not have noticed, Hong So and Betty, Stanford is building up so to have a smaller footprint. I seriously doubt we would want a world class hospital/medical center like Stanford to be still using 20th century technology.
That said, while Stanford does need to address traffic and housing issues, I fail to see how Stanford giving money for a public safety building and the creek repair can be considered mitigating. There are other terms for that. Song Ho is incorrect that Stanford is offering nothing.
Please, remember that it is Palo Alto that wants Stanford to increase the size of the shopping center and build a hotel on the site to increase tax revenues for the city
Also, let’s recall the last time Stanford built a large housing development–Stanford West–remember how the city council almost shot it down? We want Stanford to build housing, but this being Palo Alto we really do not want it–that is the Palo Alto way.
When Stanford admitted Saturday that just 11% of the Packard Children’s Hospital patients come from Palo Alto, it became pretty clear to me the proposed massive expansive is designed to benefit far more than our local community; Stanford is a world-class hospital serving the world.
I am all for that, but I do think Stanford needs to adopt a little less confrontational strategy in working this out with Palo Alto Council, who are being asked to approve a massive development far exceeding any zoning laws.
Orchestrating all the community citizens marching one by one to the podium singing Stanford’s praises, then saying that should be enough, just doesn’t smell right to me.
Personnally, our family greatly values the world class medical care practised at Stanford and, quite frankly, nearly every one of the medical facilities in the Bay Area. Over the years, we have had good experiences at several.
Stanford is clearly proposing to greatly expand its medical facilities to serve, not just the local community, but the region and the world. Reasonable local mitigation by Stanford for adding massive space to serve a region is in order.
Okay, George P:
“Orchestrating all the community citizens marching one by one to the podium singing Stanford’s praises, then saying that should be enough, just doesn’t smell right to me.”
Are you saying that these citizens are not sincere or that Stanford is paying them to say what they say.
There is also plenty of opposition to the expansion from local citiznes as well.
More importantly what do you consider to be “reasonable local mitigation”? Are the demands discussed in the article above from Saturda’s meeting reasonable?
I bet Stanford comes back with a plan to build 600 units of low cost housing in the hills. Then watch Drekmeier and company complain that you can’t build in the hills because that’s environmentally irresponsible.
Stanford has already said that all the flat land east of Foothill Expressway is taken or must remain open space because it’s Leland Stanford’s horse ranch or a golf course.
And after the city demands housing, where will those kids go to school? Might as well demand a school to go with it. The city council is clueless. Drekmeier is a loon, using his position for his own benefit with no regard to the city’s well being.
It’s amazing how they mull over the Stanford proposal to the nth degree, yet support the HSR proposal without even realizing what it contained. Stanford is the reason this city exists in the first place and will continue to be a huge money and benefit provider for the foreseeable future.
The city allows developers to grossly overbuild their projects all around the city with the public benefit being a bench or a parking space. They view Stanford as a bottomless pit of money. at some point it’s going to bite them (and us) back.
Jim H.–The council can get away with this because they know they have Stanford over a barrel. stanford cannot pull up stakes and move (unfortunately). Can you imagine them trying to pull this on any business or corporation in town–the company would be out of here in a flash (and that may be what the city wants–Sun, HP, Google etc ahve all left).
Good point about the HSR also.
If the benefits of the hospital accrue not to Palo Alto but to the region and the world (see George P above), why not look to the region and the world for mitigations? Instead, council treats Stanford as a bottomless pit of money to be extorted every time Stanford tries to do anything. It is unseemly that one of the richest communities in the world that already enjoys huge benefits from Stanford (e.g. most of your sales tax revenues that are the envy of every other city) should resort to extortion.
February 20, 2009
Low Water Allocations Point to Severe Challenges in 2009
Sacramento – Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Executive Director Timothy Quinn issued the following statement today on the 2009 water supply allocations announced by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources. The Bureau announced that some agricultural contractors stand to receive no water deliveries this year, while municipal contractors can count on receiving a 50% supply. DWR said urban and agricultural customers of the State Water Project stand to receive just 15% of requested supplies, among the lowest forecasts ever. The allocations may be updated based on conditions in the coming weeks.
http://www.acwa.com/mediazone/newsreleases/view_release.asp?ID=717
I am not against upgrading the Stanford Hospital, I am against increasing the size of the hospital. As other posters have pointed out, Stanford can build a hospital in an area that is not already overbuilt and over-trafficked.
It is fair to ask for more information from the Palo Alto City Council. I would like to know the monthly water usage of the enormous development on High Street, the projected monthly water usage of the Center for Jewish Life and the other parts of this development (including the high school), the water usage of the development on the Hyatt Ricky’s site, the projected monthly water usage of the housing developments on East Meadow, San Antonio Road and the new Stanford proposed development. How much water was the City of Palo Alto using before the Hyatt Ricky’s development?
I remember people asking before the new dense housing was approved, do our schools have space for these additional children. Does anyone remember being given a choice between massive housing developments/two-story elementary schools or no massive housing but rather small incremental new housing stock and no two-story elementary schools? This seems dishonest.
Give me a break! Stanford wants to build but wants Palo Alto to provide all the low-income housing for their (often) underpaid workers — they should build housing on campus for employees across ALL pay levels, not just provide for faculty and higher paid staff. Talk about a NIMBY attitude.
The housing request by Palo Alto is reasonable. Stanford can’t just toss money at the city and expect residents to deal with all the traffic consequences, school crowding, and change in neighborhoods without expressing concern. Yes, the city gets taxes, but Stanford has made huge profits from the shopping center, etc., and the hospitals service more people out of the area than in. Many I knowin the area cannot go to Stanford hospital or clinics because Stanford won’t accept their insurance.
If people are suspicious of those singing Stanford’s praises at the meeting, a little background may help. Stanford rented busses and paid for dinner for dozens of stanford alum/boosters so they would go to the County of Santa Clara meetings en masse asking for approval of their expansion — they wanted the impression that locals were in favor of what they were asking. Palo Alto locals were floored.
Trust remains an issue because Stanford doesn’t always play fair or keep their promises. For example, they promised trail access as part of the expansion agreement and then did a “bait and switch” by shifting the trail to what is basically an asphalt path along a major thoroughfare.
Historically, Stanford wants the positive benefits of expansion and thinks money should pacify the city and make them willing to deal with the negative consequences. There are building codes for a reason, why do they always think exceptions should be made for them?
BTW, I’m a Stanford alum and think highly of the institution, but would like them to be better neighbors.
“If people are suspicious of those singing Stanford’s praises at the meeting, a little background may help. Stanford rented busses and paid for dinner for dozens of stanford alum/boosters so they would go to the County of Santa Clara meetings en masse asking for approval of their expansion — they wanted the impression that locals were in favor of what they were asking. Palo Alto locals were floored.”
Please provide some proof for your claim regarding Stanford. Also if it was a county meeting, then why were Palo Alto locals floored? Do they think that only they have a say at the county level? And who were these locals that were “floored”.
I am suspicious of your post.
AS an aside from today’s SJ Mercury News:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11916819
“Vice Mayor Jack Morton disagreed: “For me, the bulk of the stuff on that list are requirements,” he said. He said the $18 million generated by construction fees doesn’t solve the affordable housing shortage and other problems the project creates.”
Fortunately, Morton will be long gone from the council before this matter comes up for a vote. The actions of Morton and others on the council need to be looked into for possible violations of the law
The fact is Drekmeier and his fellow board group have never dealt with the lack of tust and perception that JPA is sneaky and trying to hide things. That’s never been addressed.
A bit of history from a former resident of Menlo Park (10 Years) and Palo Alto (44 years).
Palo Alto and Menlo Park brought these impacts upon themselves. Menlo Park Mayor, Ira Bonde, and Palo Alto Mayor, Larry Klein (serving during the mid-1950s) together defeated the Willow Expressway. At the time CalTrans owned all of the right-away and the Army Corps of Engineers had plans to install a large conduit under the Expressway to carry part of the water from San Fransquito creek from upstream of the railroad bridge at El Camino all the way to the Bay. At the time I was very active in Menlo Park politics, the Sequoia Union High School District Board and a member of the Ravenswood School District Board (as a Board Member and President) and the Army Corps of Engineers as a Reserve Officer. Ira Bonde was a friend but when he saw that the Willow Expressway could be expanded to 4 lanes in each direction he convinced the Menlo Park City Council to oppose the Willow Expressway but neither Menlo Park nor Palo Alto objected to the re-building of the Dumbarton Bridge which was planned as part of the Willow Expressway. Further Palo Alto did not proceed with the southern connection of the Dumbarton bridge to the Oregon Expressway.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s (after Philip Pizzo became Dean of the School of Medicine) my wife and I became very active in the research presentations of the School of Medicine. I tried to get some of Palo Alto’s Council members to attend to no avail. Stanford School of Medicine was at the forefront of medical research.
In my opinion Stanford University owes Palo Alto very little. Without the University Palo Alto would be just another Peninsula city.
Joseph B. Violette
Rogue Valley Manor
Medford, OR 97504
How come Council is so worried about the estimated 3,000 new workers that will come to Stanford when the hospital expands, while at the same time eagerly planning to cram in 3,500 new residences because ABAG says so?
Oh, I forgot –those 3,500 new residents will not have cars; will be walking, biking or riding the train; and will not have any kids to crowd into our schools.
When you really study the Stanford Mitigation List, there are very few items on there with significant financial consequences. Marvin and other Stanford-supporters-at-any-cost will point which ones they are in posts to come.
The Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) study concluded 1,851 new residences would be needed for the 3,200 new positions created by the proposed massive expansion of the Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center.
A significant portion of those dwelling units will be below market units which will become a Palo Alto zoning mandate by ABAG. Below market units are the most expensive to provide for any community, the City of Palo Alto subsidy required is about $500,000 per unit. If just 40% of the residences needed by the massive Stanford expansion are below market units, that’s about 740. 740 times $500,000 each is $370 million in City subsidies the combination of Stanford and ABAG may put Palo Alto on the hook for.
The $18 million in one-time fees Stanford was ballyhooing last week is dwarfed by the huge obligations (more than $370 million) Stanford is attempting to dump in Palo Alto’s lap. You can see that the $3-$4 million per year in additional tax revenues is also a drop in the bucket.
600 or so housing units on the Mitigation List seems reasonable; especially if Stanford makes them all below market units with occupancy preferences granted to Emergency Staff and Palo Alto can get ABAG credit for them.
As world class hospitals, Stanford must figure out how to house, within easy walking or biking distance, a disproportionate number of Emergency Hospital Staff, or the community could be screwed when the BIG ONE hits.
When the BIG ONE hits, Stanford’s emergency preparedness plan has to include getting fresh Emergency Staff on the job 24/7 for AT LEAST 10 DAYS AFTER THE DISASTER. If Emergency Staff is commuting in from Tracy or Turlock, way too many will not be able to make it. Stanford’s emergency services will become an unfulfilled promise, and tragically life-threatening for those seeking medical help.
I, too, am a Stanford alum and long time Palo Alto resident. I love Stanford and all that it has meant for our family and to the area. There is no debate, Stanford made Silicon Valley and continues to provide life sustaining values.
Stanford made the Palo Alto community what it is today, a living, breathing community of educated and thoughtful problem-solvers. How to deal with this significant challenge fairly and thoughtfully is what we are all wrestling with, each in our own way and with our own perspectives.
My hat’s off to the seven Palo Alto Councilmembers who have been elected by all of us to best represent our community in this most important endeavor.
I think it is time for Stanford to stop feeding Palo Alto’s desire for extortion and to simply move all of its medical activities to a friendlier setting. The space on campus which would be freed up by such a move could meet the non-medical expansion needs of the rest of the University for years to come and would be well within the limits already approved by the County.
Harvard has given up trying to satisfy the outrageous demands of Cambridge and is building a huge expansion across the Charles River in Boston.
Redwood City has a lot of available space and understands that they will receive much more by Stanford’s presence than it will ‘cost’ them.
At least turn the discussion into a contest so that Palo Alto and Redwood City compete to make the University their best offer.
Stanford doesnt have any money at present to do anything.
THey have stopped anything that not already under construction.
There will be a huge delay on this project.
It is not for the community. The clinical standards at Stanford Hospital are way below that of say UCSF. The buildings are primarily to house researchers and use grant money.
Faculty at Stanford say dont go to the hospital if you are sick. Just go there to work.
So we will have a big research hospital, less open space, less greenery, worse traffic, overcrowded schools, below market housing for all the support staff in the hospitals. There is no benefit to the community in Stanford growing at all. And there is little benefit to Stanford in it becoming bigger and of lower quality.
Plus Stanford is laying people off and will be asking faculty to take pay cuts. This hospital expenditure is in the scale of flagrant crazed spending like the new stadium It is the mad representation of university budgeting being driven by grants and growth above all else.
It may be good for research but it is bad for everything and everyone else.
There’s a name for Palo Alto’s game. It’s called “extortion.” The possibility of having a world-class medical center extends far beyond benefits to locals, although it’s good to have an emergency room handy. The benefits to the world that come from this kind of a medical research and teaching facility are immense. There is a stink of aging yuppie NIMBY entitlement that emanates from the City Council chambers. Surely, the example of AIG teaches that “me first” is morally corrupt.
Yeah. What if Stanford up and moved to someplace else like Bakersfield or Barstow or Elko. How would Palo Alto feel about that?