|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Saving lives is laudable, necessary work and is nearly all that should be expected of a top-notch research hospital and medical school, several Palo Altans told the City Council Monday — espousing a position that resonates with Councilwoman Judy Kleinberg.
“I am thrilled this opportunity is before us,” Kleinberg said. “This is a jewel in the crown of our community.”
Monday’s “scoping” meeting was held so the council and community members could point out issues worth further study in the environmental impact report (EIR) covering the proposed expansions of the Stanford Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center.
The council did not vote on suggestions by council members, which were noted by EIR consultants.
Solidly supportive of Stanford’s plans, Kleinberg anchored one end of the spectrum of views espoused Monday, although she acknowledged the project will affect Palo Alto.
Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto and several other council members, however, focused on the effects of the hundreds of additional vehicles, more than 2.000 new employees and the other impacts of the 1.3 million-square-foot medical center expansion.
“It’s a very large project, the impacts will be large,” Kishimoto said. “Working with Stanford (hopefully) we end up with an overall better community as a result of this project.”
Stanford Medical Center is proposing a complex project of new construction, retrofitting and demolition that would add a net 723,800 square feet to Stanford Hospital, add 401,500 square feet to the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, completely replace 415,000 square feet of medical school buildings and add about 186,000 additional square feet of medical office space.
The new hospital would have three 130-foot towers (eight stories) and the Children’s Hospital expansion would rise about 85 feet, well above the city’s current 50-foot height limit.
The shopping center expansion will create a 120-room hotel and add 240,000 square feet of retail space, staffed by 185 additional employees, according to EIR consultant Trixie Martelino.
Fifteen members of the public commented on the project, many expressing support of Stanford’s plans.
Councilman Peter Drekmeier said he wanted the EIR to examine the additional housing need generated by the project, as well as increased water use. He urged Stanford leaders to use environmentally friendly construction practices.
Councilman Jack Morton said he’d like to separate the project components needed to meet state seismic standards from those included to expand the facilities.
He emphasized the enormity of the project’s effects.
“I hope that (Stanford) will get most of what it wants in a way that we want it,” Morton said.
The council added its requests to128 items previously generated by the Planning and Transportation Commission and other reviewers.
Public meetings on the projects are scheduled for Oct. 4, Oct. 18 and an unspecified date in November, with the issue returning to the council Nov. 19, Martelino said.
Comments on topics to be studied in the environmental document will be accepted until Oct. 1 and should be directed to Steven Turner, 250 Hamilton Ave., fifth floor, Palo Alto, CA 94302 or e-mailed to steven.turner@cityofpaloalto.org
In other business:
* Delegates from one of Palo Alto’s Sister Cities, Enschede, the Netherlands, attended the meeting to kick-off a five-year economic alliance between the two cities.
The Palo Alto City Council approved the project unanimously.
Through exchanges of students, entrepreneurs and others, improved communication and additional efforts the cities, their business communities and Stanford University and Enschede’s Twente University, will work together to improve their economic bases, the program description states.
Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto presented Enschede Mayor P.E.J. den Oudsten a golden key to Palo Alto. In exchange, the city received two photographs of innovative projects in Enschede.
The project is not expected to use City of Palo Alto funds, city staff members said.
* On 7-1 vote, the council approved a letter to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission stressing the urgency of the proposed improvements to the massive Hetch Hetchy water system and urging the commission to minimize the additional use of water from the Tuolumne River. Councilman Peter Drekmeier, an employee of the Tuolumne River Trust, did not vote on the letter and Councilwoman Judy Kleinberg was opposed, because she interpreted the letter differently than her colleagues, saying it did not actually oppose additional use of the Tuolumne River.
The Hetch Hetchy upgrade includes a $4.3 billion series of projects to strengthen the system’s ability to withstand and recover from an earthquake and to amplify the water supply, which currently serves 2.4 million Bay Area users.
A draft environmental report for the project is available at www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=37672. Comments are due by Oct. 1.
(Staff Writer Becky Trout can be e-mailed at btrout@paweekly.com.)
The article is somewhat misleading in that there were a number of thoughtful comments expressing concern about the Stanford expansion and laying out specific suggestions for the environmental review. The so-called “support” was in the nature of “I love Stanford and so just forget about the rules and approve it.” The “supporters” had no credibility.
The Palo Alto Daily News also covered this story:
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2007-9-25-pa-standford-eir
According to Howard the following people who commented had no credibility:
“But many residents were quick to defend Stanford, saying the medical center needs to be able to care for the city’s aging population down the road.
One resident described the care given to her at the medical center after a painful cycling accident, while others talked about the comfort of “having Stanford hospital available when I need it,” as Menlo Park resident and Stanford faculty member Stanley Peters put it.
“Quite frankly, this is probably the best thing that’s ever happened to our community,” said Daryl Savage, a member of the city’s human rights commission.”
In addition the article states:
“Among members of the city council, environmental concerns were balanced with eagerness for the public benefit of an expanded hospital and broadened base of sales tax.”
At least Ms Kleinberg seems to get it:
“There are communities that would be drooling to have this opportunity,” she said.”
Obviously this project needs to undergo review and certain potential problems need to be addressed–however this is not a big “negative” for PA as people like Howard seem to think.
We all love the medical innovations and benefits Stanford’s Medical Complex has delivered for years, and want to see that continue.
We are hopeful that Stanford is not raising an 800-pound pet gorilla which it permits to roam free and leave unwelcome deposits on neighbors’ properties.
Palo Alto, and virtually every community, has “Good Neighbor” policies every responsible pet owner honors which include cleaning up after your pet.
Should Stanford refuse to provide housing for most of the 3,000-plus new employees its massive expansion will require, and the Palo Alto Council fail to convince it to do so, Stanford will in effect become an irresponsible pet owner permitting its powerful pet to wreak havoc on its neighbors. This will take the form of diminished emergency preparedness, vehicular traffic snarls, greater off-campus housing density with more K-12 students to educate.
That’s a massive “clean-up” for its neighbors to deal with for evermore.
Helen–let me ask you this–council members and many PA residents continue to say that PA is built out and cannot take any more housing.
So which is it–PA is built out or there is room for housing if Stanford foots the bill?
Also why is there an assumption that all of these new employees should/will want to live in Palo Alto? Does PA really want Stanford to build housing for 3000+ people? If PA is so insistant in wanting Stanford to provide housing will they allow Stanford to use the foothills area to build housing?
I also refer you to Diana Diamond’s column in todays PA Weekly.
Where does this 3000+ number come from? They are talking about 2000 potential new employees a number of years after the remodel of the hospital. The shopping center redo, which is a separate issue, will have about 800 new employees.
The city council desperately wants the shopping center remodel, including the building of a boutique hotel, to help prop up our sinking sales tax base. Of course a new hotel and additional stores will bring additional traffic with it.
So what does PA really want–more hotels and stores and with it more sales tax revenue and more employees and traffic?
It seems that our city (both the council and some residents) want the best of both worlds–increased tax flow, but no traffic or new employees–you cannot have both these days.
“But many residents were quick to defend Stanford, saying the medical center needs to be able to care for the city’s aging population down the road.”
The medical center will not only be caring for the city’s aging population. Another medical center is needed to care for the area’s population, but we do not need to put it in Stanford or Palo Alto. There are cities near Palo Alto with more space and less traffic congestion able to accommodate a large medical center. Also, new medical centers are being built in our area – Mountain View has just replaced an Emporium store with the Camino Medical Group.
“So which is it–PA is built out or there is room for housing if Stanford foots the bill?”
Stanford has land for housing; Stanford employees can be housed on Stanford land. However, I am in favor of people moving in and out of the area but I am not in favor of massive housing or massive community building projects. Our only question should not be “will this project generate revenue for Palo Alto”, we should be asking where will we get the resources – we have to ration water and electricity at our current level of population. We have air that is so dirty that it is degrading the health of those who live here, do we need more traffic? How many parents want their children to go to multi-story schools? Residents pay a high price when a city cares only about generating revenue.
“Stanford employees can be housed on Stanford land”
It’s interesting to see how things come full circle. We now see the old 19th century ‘company town’ concept being propsoed for the 21st century. Although such company towns had some virtues, they also had their limitations, including the desire to be set free by the workers. The automobile, train, buses, telecommuting , etc. now allow poeple to live where they want, and work somewhere else.
It is more rational to provide public mass transit, improved roads, parking garages (at Stanford), pollution free cars, etc., than to force workers to live with their employer.
JMO
time for Stanford to not only build more housing in its campus core area, lowering impact on neighboring communities, but provide a new access road to 280, taking pressure off Alpine and page mill rd.
Sand Hill needs to be widened to 4 lanes from Arboretum to ECR, and, now that North PA has traffic calming, turn restrictions from Alma, open up Alma to all turning movements. Menlo Park is probably going to prohibit u turns at Cambridge so this new Stanford development traffic doesn’t further congest the ECR scene in the evening commute hours. Just try to go north on ECR in MP during rush hour, and you know where that traffic originates.
BTW, that would be Campus Drive West extension across the golf course to 280. Horrors that such a pristine area could be defiled by a new road. Just drive up Sand Hill to 280 and look at the new mega hotel/conference center under construction on Stanford land, next to the “World’s Most Beautiful Freeway”.
The article is very misleading, as Howard also points out. There were approximately 14 speakers and half of them were supporters who just sang the I love Stanford song without any content. Actually 4 of the supporters were Stanford employees.
The people who expressed concern were polite but expressed serious questions about housing for the new people and the huge amount of traffic that will be generated.
You misinterpreted politeness for support.