Upfront
Local news, information and analysis
Sale of Cubberley back on table Council, school board, both will discuss future of 8-acre parcel next week by Chris Kenrick
P
ush may finally be coming to shove on the fate of Palo Alto’s treasured but dilapidated Cubberley Community Center. The Palo Alto City Council Monday will consider whether to pursue negotiations on a possible deal with the Foothill-De Anza
Community College District, as the district looks to buy acreage to build “a state-of-the-art educational facility.� Also next week, the Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education will hold an open discussion of Cubberley after discuss-
ing the Middlefield Road parcel for weeks in executive session behind closed doors. Foothill for years has leased the 8 city-owned acres at Cubberley, serving about 4,000 students in its satellite Middlefield Campus. Now it appears ready to either purchase and upgrade the land — or build its new Foothill-De Anza Education Center elsewhere. Cubberley’s remaining 27 acres are owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District.
The school district closed Cubberley High School due to declining enrollment in 1979, and the campus became a community center in a lease arrangement with the city, with Foothill as the anchor tenant. But with the school district now confronting fast-rising enrollment, district officials have said Cubberley needs to stay on tap as possible expansion space. Foothill-De Anza set a midsummer deadline for expressions of in-
terest from various parties, including private brokers and the City of Sunnyvale, so it can move forward with building a campus. The college district says it plans a facility that will serve Silicon Valley “through programs and partnerships that seamlessly transition individuals from high school to community college to the university and the workplace as well as offering a rich array of lifelong learning opportu(continued on page 8)
CITY HALL
Council set to change binding-arbitration law Majority favors modifying rather than scrapping provision; decision deferred until late July by Gennady Sheyner
P
Veronica Weber
Lazy days of summer While Max Bernstein, left, hula-hoops, Isabelle Amon, Lindsay Sotnick, Alex Warner, Shannon Fee and Amanda Aldridge relax in the shade at Rinconada Park during summer break. The group will be heading into 10th grade in two short months.
LAND USE
Kids delay bulldozers on hospital-expansion project Day care parents say they learned of imminent construction just two weeks ago by Chris Kenrick
K
ids playing in a tree-shaded sandbox have temporarily stopped the bulldozers on Stanford University’s $5 billion medical-center expansion. Parents of children at Stanford’s Arboretum Children’s Center, which has operated inconspicuously for years among the oaks near Hoover Pavilion, said they learned just two weeks ago that digging for a new parking garage was set to begin next
month in the middle of the school’s current play yard. Stanford’s construction plans will demolish the day care center’s “Forest Room� and place 2-month-old to 5-year-old children just 38 feet away from the digging for the nine-level garage, they said. Acknowledging “parents have only recently become aware� of the imminent construction, Stanford appeared to be scrambling this week
to resolve the issue. While maintaining the project “will not pose significant health risks to children,� the university asked the Palo Alto City Council to postpone a final approval on the massive medical-center expansion from June 20 to July 11. Stanford’s current plans call for relocating the Forest classroom and playyard space to a side of the day care center away from the digging. But parents, many of whom are Stanford physicians and scientists, say they’re still worried about toxic airborne particles and dangerous noise levels. “There are many unanswered questions regarding possible significant health hazards of the construction project,� they said in a statement. “We have several parents willing to lie in front of bulldozers if nec(continued on page 6)
alo Alto voters could still have a chance this year to tweak the binding-arbitration provision in the City Charter, though a downright repeal of the controversial law now looks less likely than ever. The 33-year-old provision, which empowers an arbitration panel to settle disputes between the city and its public-safety unions, has become a hot topic of debate over the past two years. Last August, a proposal by council members Greg Scharff and Karen Holman to place binding arbitration on the 2010 ballot failed by a 4-5 vote, with several council members saying they needed more time to study the issue further. A year later, the council remains just as split on a possible repeal of binding arbitration. But council members agreed Monday night that the existing provision is unacceptable and voted 8-0, with Nancy Shepherd absent, to send it back to a committee that would come up with potential modifications. Changes could potentially include tying the arbitration process to the budget cycle and requiring the arbitration panel to consider issues such as the city’s long-term financial future and equity among employee groups. The full council would then decide in late July whether to place the proposed modifications, or a repeal, on the ballot. Scharff and Holman once again proposed putting a repeal of binding-arbitration on the ballot, but they withdrew the proposal when it became clear that the council majority favored modification. Holman maintained that the provision strips the council of its power to oversee the city budget and called the debate
an “issue of accountability.� Scharff, who chairs the council’s Finance Committee, was even more blunt. He noted that the city is facing a projected deficit of $6.7 million in fiscal year 2013 and said repealing binding arbitration is the “only solution� to the city’s financial troubles. “Modification isn’t going to work,� Scharff said. “What we need to do is repeal it.� Councilman Pat Burt agreed that now is the time to give the voters a say on the matter. Like Holman, he said the city has already had a year to decide the issue. Palo Alto, he said, is one of only about 5 percent of the cities in the state that have binding-arbitration provisions. This doesn’t seem to create a major problem elsewhere, he said. “One of the things I admire about my neighboring cities, Sunnyvale and Mountain View, is that they have excellent public-safety departments,� Burt said. “And they’re able to do that without binding arbitration.� But caution once again prevailed. Councilwoman Gail Price said she was concerned that the city is moving too fast and proposed that the item go back to a committee for a two-to-three month discussion and a recommendation on how to modify the provision. The city, she said, is well known for putting time and attention into difficult decisions and this one should be no different. Larry Klein characterized the argument over binding arbitration as a clash between “two conflicting undemocratic principles.� “It’s certainly undemocratic to (continued on page 6)
*>Â?ÂœĂŠ Â?ĂŒÂœĂŠ7iiÂŽÂ?ÞÊUĂŠ Ă•Â˜iĂŠĂ“{]ÊÓ䣣ÊU Page 3