Stanford University will not have to pay a fine for failing to meet the traffic reduction goals it was required to achieve under a deal that allowed for a massive expansion of its hospital.
However, it will have to speed up its efforts to get employees out of the car to avoid future sanctions, the Palo Alto City Council agreed Monday, October 23.
By a 4-2 vote, with Greg Tanaka and Julie Lythcott-Haims dissenting and Vicki Veenker recusaled, the board voted Oct. 23 to amend the development agreement that the board and Stanford approved in 2011, an agreement historic which required years of negotiations. and this allowed the university to rebuild and expand its hospital facilities. This included rebuilding Stanford Hospital and Clinics (now known as Stanford Health Care), renovating Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and expanding the University of California School of Medicine. Stanford.
In return, Stanford committed to having at least 33% of hospital staff use alternative modes of transportation (other than driving alone) by 2021. The threshold would then increase to 35.1% by 2025. two consecutive years would result in a fine of $175,000 for each year after the first in which hospitals fail.
This is exactly what happened in 2021, 2022, and 2023, when Stanford saw the number of alternative transportation modes drop precipitously. After hovering above 33% for seven consecutive years between 2013 and 2019, the percentage of people who did not drive alone to work fell to 28.8% in 2021 and to 19.9% in 2022 before to partially rebound to 25.6% in 2023, according to data on commuting. surveys that Stanford conducts every May.
Stanford attributed the decline to the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to service reductions among transit agencies and made people more anxious about taking public transportation. He requested that the target years be delayed so that the 33% threshold applies to 2025 and the 35.1% threshold comes into effect in 2028.
“For hospital employees, the burden of the pandemic was unique,” Rachel de Guzman, vice president of planning, design and construction at Stanford Medicine, told the board during the Oct. 23 discussion. “In order to continue providing the best possible care to the community, employees needed to maintain their own health and safety, which often meant minimizing potential exposure to the virus and, in many cases, traveling alone in cars.
De Guzman told the council that even if things start to rebound, hospitals will need more time to reach their goals.
“Restoring transportation habits lost during the pandemic will unfortunately take time,” de Guzman said.
The board was willing to give Stanford a little more time, but not as much as it wanted. Under Vice Mayor Greer Stone’s proposal, supported by most of his colleagues, the 33% target would be postponed to 2024 and the 35.1% target to 2026.
Although Stone acknowledged the impact of Covid-19 on travel patterns, he and his colleagues struggled to justify a three-year extension, which he said was neither necessary nor consistent with the agreement of development.
“An extra year makes sense and gives them a little more time between the interim target year and the final target year,” Stone said.
Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims called Stanford’s explanation of the pandemic’s impact on commuting “a little misleading.” She noted that Stanford’s numbers had begun to decline even before the pandemic, with the percentage of hospital employees relying on alternative modes falling from 39.1% in 2017 to 38.1% in 2018 and 33.8 % in 2019 (the university did not carry out its survey in 2019). 2020, when the Covid-19 emergency disrupted travel patterns and service providers).
The fact that there was a decline in alternative travel modes in 2018 and 2019 undermines the argument that Covid-19 is solely to blame, she said.
“While we understand that the pandemic then caused more damage, the program was clearly in decline in the two years before the pandemic and I imagine that contributed to the motion before you,” Lythcott said- Haim, referring to the proposal to bring forward the target date.
However, neither she nor any of her colleagues have shown much inclination to impose financial sanctions for the years 2022 and 2023. Insisting on money, members acknowledged, would be legally difficult given the pandemic. Stanford had argued that its failure to meet its goals in 2020 constituted a permissible delay under the development agreement’s “force majeure” clause, which provides exceptions for unforeseen circumstances beyond the parties’ control.
Council members also clarified as part of the vote that any money the city collects from Stanford to reduce travel would prioritize the part of northwest Palo Alto that includes Stanford’s hospitals and mall. Council member Pat Burt, who made the proposal, noted that hospitals may have an easier time meeting their goals once Caltrain electrifies its rail corridor and increases its service levels over the next two years.
“A dilemma for hospitals is that they have shift workers who are there 24/7,” Burt said. “So this will reinforce an uncertain impact, but Caltrain expects a large increase in ridership during this time.”
The board’s proposed revision will now be sent back to Stanford for review. It was not immediately clear whether the hospitals would accept the revised development agreement or rely on the “force majeure” clause to secure delays in implementing the existing development agreement. De Guzman said Stanford will “explore its possibilities.” She and the board agreed, however, that Stanford had both the resources and expertise to meet its transportation goals.
“We succeeded. We can do it. What we’re asking for is just a little more time to do it,” de Guzman said.
