After starting out on a rancorous note, Palo Alto and Stanford University are now nearing an agreement over the types of benefits Stanford would have to provide to earn the city's permission to expand its hospital facilities by 1.3 million square feet.
The city, expecting the new development to increase the demand for housing, transportation and city services, is likely to ask the university to provide $30 million over five years for infrastructure improvements such as a new public-safety building and road fixes.
Members of the City Council Finance Committee said Tuesday night they are pleased with the way negotiations are going over Stanford's ambitious expansion. The redevelopment is driven in part by a state mandate that all hospital facilities upgrade to become seismically safe by 2013 (Stanford has requested a two-year extension).
Last year, the two sides were far apart, with some council members calling for Stanford to build a "village" to house its workers, help improve flood control at San Francisquito Creek and help the city build new police headquarters.
Stanford has consistently maintained that the project itself, by providing quality health care, is a major community benefit. University officials have repeatedly insisted that any benefits be directly related to the hospital.
Since then, Palo Alto has withdrawn some of its most extreme requests, while Stanford has agreed to fund transportation improvements and pay the city millions of dollars in fees that would support city services.
"I like the direction this is going," Vice Mayor Sid Espinosa said Tuesday night. "I think we're having the right conversation.
"I'm glad to see we're not talking about delays and that we're not miles apart."
The change in tone is driven partly by the Stanford's deadlines and partly by turnover on the City Council. The council lost Yoriko Kishimoto, one of the leading proponents of the "village concept"; Peter Drekmeier, chief advocate for the creek improvement project; and Jack Morton, who repeatedly accused Stanford of "fighting dirty."
Earlier this year, in his State of the City speech, Mayor Pat Burt said he was determined to move the Stanford project forward "expeditiously this year through review by our relevant boards and commissions and finally the City Council."
But some disagreements remain. Last June, Stanford submitted a $125 million proposal to Palo Alto including $23.1 million for affordable housing; $5.8 million in fees community fees; $7 million in health care programs for low-income families; and $2.25 million for pedestrian and bicycle connections between the hospitals and downtown Palo Alto.
In a new staff report, Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie called Stanford's proposal for a 30-year development agreement "substantive and responsive to many project impacts," but proposed adding other requirements to the development agreement.
Emslie told the Finance Committee the city's counterproposal to Stanford would seek to minimize the project's fiscal impacts to the city, ease the impacts of the project, preserve community health care and enhance the city's infrastructure.
The city is expected to ask Stanford to extend its proposed health-care programs for low-income residents for the life of the negotiated development agreement, rather than the 10-year term Stanford proposed. The city is also proposing that Stanford contribute $30 million to fund needed infrastructure, including an Emergency Operations Center, a new police building and road projects.
The city is facing an estimated $500 million infrastructure backlog. City Manager James Keene said Tuesday he's not sure whether $30 million is the right figure or not. But he said it provides "a vehicle for frank discussion" about Palo Alto's infrastructure, from which Stanford would also benefit.
"We don't want to look at a world-class hospital expansion in a city that moves towards a second-class status as a city," Keene told the committee.
Committee Chair Greg Schmid said the most important item for him is making sure the city has enough housing and school space to accommodate the additional workforce Stanford's projects would bring.
"I do not want to be left at the end of the day with a development agreement and all of a sudden be told we have to be building more houses," Schmid said. "That would be in the long run the most serious and biggest impact of what's taking place."
The negotiations are scheduled to accelerate next month, when Palo Alto releases a long-awaited Environmental Impact Report analyzing how the Stanford projects will affect the city and proposing ways to ease the negative impacts.
Michael Peterson, vice president for special projects at Stanford Hospital and Clinics, said Tuesday that Stanford would wait until the document comes out before considering all the details of the city's proposal. In the past, Stanford has been reluctant to commit to projects that don't directly relate to the hospitals.
The $3.5 billion project includes demolition and replacement of Stanford Hospital and Clinics and major renovation of Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. Stanford also plans to renovate its School of Medicine and build a new medical building near Hoover Pavilion.
Comments
Midtown
on Apr 7, 2010 at 1:35 pm
on Apr 7, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Does anyone know where Stanford patients will go while the old hospital is being demolished and a new one built?
Where will medical students go while the School of Medicine is being renovated?
Registered user
Barron Park
on Apr 7, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Registered user
on Apr 7, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Stanford wants to _expand_ the hospital to serve a much larger area (they already advertise internationally). A larger service area provides access to more patients with difficult cases. This is legitimate for a teaching and research hospital.
The problem comes with Stanford claiming that it is the Palo Alto community hospital and thus Palo Altans should bear the costs of the impacts. First, Stanford is out-of-plan for a significant number of residents, with Kaiser being the most prominent example. Second, Palo Altans are already only a fraction of the patients (Stanford already has more than enough capacity to be Palo Alto's "community hospital")
There is NO public benefit for Palo Altans from the Stanford _expansion_. That public benefit is to the much larger region, and the costs should be spread over the region. It was Stanford's choice to not try to redress this problem and instead "play chicken" with Palo Alto.
Stanford's advocates in the community argue that Palo Altans should just pick up the tab for the whole region. This attitude of "Palo Altans are so rich ..." is played a large role in the current massive structural budget deficit.
Stanford
on Apr 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm
on Apr 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm
"The change in tone is driven partly by the Stanford's deadlines and partly by turnover on the City Council. The council lost Yoriko Kishimoto, one of the leading proponents of the "village concept"; Peter Drekmeier, chief advocate for the creek improvement project; and Jack Morton, who repeatedly accused Stanford of "fighting dirty.""
Yes, getting rid of those three from the council was a big step in the right direction. Mr Morton's comments directed at those, including patients, that showed up to support Stanford's expansion plans were beneath contempt.
Anyway, what Palo Alto is asking for is way too much---Stanford has offered $125+ million dollars. Palo Alto should not expect Stanford to rescue it from it's self-inflicted budget woes.
If Palo Alto insists on having Stanford fund it's police palace, then I think Stanford needs to re-think it's very generous lease agreements it has with Palo Alto for a number of school sights and other land (in some cases Palo Alto is paying pennies a year for the lease) and start charging Palo Alto fair market value for the land.
This is a two way street--for too long Palo Alto has acted as if Stanford is some evil empire sucking money and resources from the city without providing anything in return (I think we all know how much revenue is generated for Palo Alto from Stanford events, visitors, students, staff etc) on the other hand some of our former council member see Stanford as their personal ATM to get large sums of money when they consistently mismanage the cities finances.
And, Doug, the massive structural budget deficit is due to mismanagment of our finances by a long list of mangers and council members. It is easy for many people, like Doug Moran, to make STanford the scapegoat
Registered user
Barron Park
on Apr 7, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Registered user
on Apr 7, 2010 at 3:50 pm
RE "Med center scientist, a resident of Stanford"
Realize that the "very generous lease" arrangements mentioned were in _exchange_ for concessions by the City. It's like buying something and then insisting that the money paid was simply a loan to the seller.
Notice in his final paragraph that he takes my statement criticizing City Council for an attitude of Palo Alto can afford anything and claims I was scapegoating Stanford. This is the sort of malicious misrepresentation of opponents that is the stock-in-trade of Stanford's advocates and part of the reason that they have long earned the reputation of being bullies and not to be trusted.
Menlo Park
on Apr 7, 2010 at 3:56 pm
on Apr 7, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Since Menlo Park gets the brunt of the traffic to Stanford to/from Willow Road and 101, shouldn't they be included in the discussions?
Stanford
on Apr 7, 2010 at 4:09 pm
on Apr 7, 2010 at 4:09 pm
"Notice in his final paragraph that he takes my statement criticizing City Council for an attitude of Palo Alto can afford anything and claims I was scapegoating Stanford. This is the sort of malicious misrepresentation of opponents that is the stock-in-trade of Stanford's advocates and part of the reason that they have long earned the reputation of being bullies and not to be trusted."
I am sorry, Doug, that you took my comments (which is my opinion and in no way binding on anyone) and calling them a "malicious misrepresentation of opponents". I see that part of the problem lies with Mr Moran's choice of words, in which he calls supporters of Stanford "opponents". What are we opponents of, Doug? Palo Alto? I hardly think so?
Mr Moran goes further and then lumps everyone who supports Stanford their efforts to comply with new regulations regarding hospitals with my opinion and claims that this is the "stock-in-trade of Stanford's advocates". He concludes by calling all of us "bullies" and that we are not "to be trusted".
Not sure where Mr Moran is drawing his conclusions from, maybe Jack Morton's booklet from last year. But talk about "malicious misrepresentation of opponents"
I will stand by my comments that Palo Alto in general derives plenty of benefit from Stanford all year round. It is unfortunate that Palo alto has adopted this "us vs them" mentality as personified by Mr Moran's comments.
I would conclude by saying it is fortunate for Palo Alto that Mr Moran does not sit on the city council
Greenmeadow
on Apr 7, 2010 at 7:42 pm
on Apr 7, 2010 at 7:42 pm
My biggest concern is that Palo Alto feels driven to build even more high density housing under the guise of affordable housing for new Stanford employees hired because of the expansion. Does anyone know what proportion of those in affordable units now are Stanford employees? I have to agree with the "village" concept -- if Stanford wants affordable housing, they should build it as part of their 1.3 million square foot expansion, not expect Palo Alto to continue to decrease quality of life by squeezing everyone in. Look at the most recent high density projects and those pending -- we're beginning to look like Sunnyvale or San Jose. People choose Palo Alto for a number of reasons, some of which are lots of trees, a family feel to the neighborhoods, etc. Stacked living is anti-family feel and just plain ugly (JCC, for example, Hyatt Rickey's being another example). Yes, change is inevitable, but change for the worse is not. Carry your fair share of the high density experience, Stanford, and not just for the super-wealthy (e.g., Hyatt Residency). You have lots more land than the city does. Finally, I agree with previous posts -- Stanford's expansion is not essential to serving Palo Alto residents, it is essential to increasing regional and international appeal.
another community
on Apr 7, 2010 at 11:36 pm
on Apr 7, 2010 at 11:36 pm
As a nurse working for a hospital, it is somewhat difficult to articulate the intensity of what a nurse does and how they provide care. When patients are hospitalized, they are not at their best normal self. We nurses are the advocate for these hospitalized patients by constantly collaborating with the doctors and other disciplines, monitor patients' status and adjust the care provided throughout the shift. Besides the physical care, we are also addressing their emotional well being and the stressed out family members who are in crisis because their loved ones are very ill with multiorgan system failure. The priorities and decisions we make affects the patient's outcome and their recovery. We have accountability towards the patient we care for. This is a teaching hospital. The experienced RN's are the ones who guide the new interns on how to take care of certain clinical situations. They may have all the theory in their heads and cheat sheets on their iphone, but the nurses are the one alerting them to come to the floor and examine the patient because of the change in status. Stanford Hospital has earned the Magnet status because of the nurses' contributions, acheivements and dedication in providing excellent care to all of our patients from local areas all the way to referral patients from other counties and other countries.
Stanford Hospital has totally disregard the longevity status of nurses who has worked for a long time. Now that these nurses are close to their retirement, our concern and priority regarding this contract is that if the nurse gets sick, the hospital covers the health insurance for only maximum 12 weeks. For whatever reason you needed to stay out of work more than 12 weeks, you will have to pay your own insurance out of pocket "cobra" which is about $700 if you are single and for a family of 4, it's about $1800/month. How can you pay out of pocket if you are sick and receiving disability making less money? As a group, we are just addressing issues that affects us a staff RN working at Stanford. As for "us" being replaced easily by the SCABS, bring it on!!!! These replacement RNs might have the skills to help keep the hospital running but they will never reach the level of "mastering the craft" because it takes time and commitment to become like "us". I hope Stanford Hospital will begin to recognize our contributions because we are one of the reasons why this hospital has gained good reputation. I feel so proud and confident to be surrounded by my coworkers because no matter how busy we get on the floor, I know they have my back!!! How many people out their can honestly say that they go to work and doesn't complain about the intensity of the workload because of the support they get from their coworkers. YOU BETTA' RECOGNIZE!!!
Stanford
on Apr 8, 2010 at 10:12 am
on Apr 8, 2010 at 10:12 am
Doug Moran states:
"Notice in his final paragraph that he takes my statement criticizing City Council for an attitude of Palo Alto can afford anything and claims I was scapegoating Stanford. This is the sort of malicious misrepresentation of opponents that is the stock-in-trade of Stanford's advocates and part of the reason that they have long earned the reputation of being bullies and not to be trusted."
It reminds me of what I read once on a website;
(Web Link
"If confrontational and/or verbally abusive behavior has the effect of intimidating others or driving them out of the forum, it is not a violation of free speech to discipline those engaging in such behavior. "
Doug Moran is attempting to intimidate others with his comments.
I am sure Doug Moran feels that he is exercising his free-speech rights, but I also read on the website linked above:
"People who claim their free-speech rights are being violated are almost invariably arrogrant, self-righteous, self-absorbed, and/or abusive. It is pointless to try to reason with them: other people's rights are simply irrelevant to them. "
Palo Alto High School
on Apr 8, 2010 at 12:06 pm
on Apr 8, 2010 at 12:06 pm
The more Palo Alto drives up the costs of the new hospital, the less will Stanford Hospital services be affordable/available to the citizens of Palo Alto, not to mention the affect on the hospital's ability to compete in other markets. But Palo Alto is just determined to come as close as they can to killing the golden goose, without actually killing it. I hope there is full financial disclosure regarding contributions to the city council members by owners/employees of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation.
Midtown
on Apr 10, 2010 at 11:04 am
on Apr 10, 2010 at 11:04 am
At one of Stanford Hospital's neighborhood outreach meetings, I asked what the hospital was doing to reel in the astronomical costs of health care. No answer. The hospital reps looked like deer in the headlights. They could only talk about how all patient rooms would be private rooms and state of the art health care.
Teaching hospitals, like Stanford, lavishly use the resources of the communities where they are based. They bring in interesting cases to study and work on from all over the world -- and these interesting cases are paid for by additional costs to paying other patients.
Adjacent cities subsidize the costs for increased police, fire, homes and schools, roads, utilities, waste, etc. to service the new facilities and its thousands of people.
Should Stanford help displace most of the new costs Palo Alto (and yes Menlo Park, too) are incurring with this expansion? In the words of Sarah Palin, "You betcha!"