Palo Alto staff, consultants present three concepts for 35‑acre Cubberley master plan; bond, parking and programming remain key questions

City staff and master‑planning consultants presented three conceptual redesigns for the 35‑acre Cubberley site on Middlefield Road during a July 9 Planning and Transportation Commission study session, urging the commission to weigh in on circulation, building massing, parking and programming as the city prepares for a bond measure and further design work.

The Cubberley site, which the transcript shows the city currently owns 8 acres and leases about 27 acres from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), is the subject of a new master planning process led by Concordia. City staff told commissioners a signed MOU between PAUSD and the city includes a potential purchase of 7 additional acres by the city contingent on a successful ballot measure in November 2026.

The study session matters because a master plan will shape whether voters are asked next year to finance acquisition and construction, and because the site serves a wide mix of users — nonprofit tenants, youth sports, performing arts groups and neighborhood residents. Staff emphasized that cost estimates, geotechnical and stormwater work and further community outreach are pending before any construction decisions.

Concordia presented three distinct concept geometries. The “diagonal” concept — which received the strongest cumulative support at a recent community meeting — places a diagonal bike‑and‑pedestrian promenade from Nelson Drive through the campus to Middlefield, flanked by buildings that form multiple outdoor courtyards. The “grid” concept emphasizes orthogonal promenades and a greater number of smaller outdoor spaces. The “linear” concept centers a large rectangular promenade and a central outdoor amenity. Each concept has three options: all new construction; partial renovation of three existing concrete‑frame buildings (the pavilion/gym, the theater and Building I); or a structured (four‑story) parking option. All three concepts are shown complying with existing setbacks and height limits.

On parking, staff and Concordia described two distinct approaches: a partially underground single parking level, shown beneath portions of the site, and a separate four‑story structured parking garage as an alternative. The team said the “partial underground” option is a single level that is partly below grade and partly above grade to reduce cost and allow ventilation and future conversion of parking floors to program space. The structured garage, if used, was shown in the concepts as a four‑story block that Concordia said would be designed with a flat floor to allow future conversion to program uses if parking demand declines.

Commissioners asked detailed clarifying questions about circulation, parking and programmatic fit. Commissioners and the public repeatedly pressed for clearer information tying building footprints to specific uses — for example, whether theaters, dance studios and a large recreation and wellness center could be accommodated in the proposed 70‑foot‑bay building module Concordia described as the project’s flexible building type. Concordia said the 70‑foot bay is intended to be a flexible envelope capable of accommodating gyms, classrooms, a theater and other uses, and noted that the diagonal concept would be revised to widen the promenade to about 100 feet (Concordia said the linear promenade had been closer to 200 feet in the concepts shown).

Public commenters urged preservation of long‑term nonprofit tenants and performing arts groups, greater attention to farmer’s‑market type uses and covered walkways, and use of local labor for construction. Rene Baez of the NorCal Carpenters Union asked the city to require responsible contractors that hire locally and use registered apprenticeships. Several long‑time Cubberley users, including a dance studio representative, asked the city to retain nonprofit performing arts and dance studios in any redevelopment.

Staff noted the master plan process timeline: additional review by the Architectural Review Board in July; a third community meeting scheduled for Sept. 17; a final review with cost estimates and phasing for City Council on Dec. 8. Staff and consultants also described related work: polling and ballot strategy led by Lou Edwards Group and FM3, and ongoing coordination with transportation and structural, sustainability and cost‑estimating consultants.

What remains unresolved at the study session is the project’s funding plan, the final parking approach, and a more explicit program‑to‑footprint mapping that many commissioners said is necessary before a ballot measure. Staff said cost estimates are due in early fall and that a geotechnical analysis and stormwater management planning would verify feasibility for partially underground parking and other design elements.

Looking forward, staff asked the Planning and Transportation Commission for feedback on arrival and parking, pedestrian and bike circulation, building scale and organization, landscape and green space balance, and how the project would be a “good neighbor” to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The commission provided extensive design and policy feedback — including asking staff to return with more precise program‑to‑space mapping, clearer circulation plans that separate through‑bike traffic from pedestrian zones and options for distributing parking to reduce long walking distances for people with mobility needs.

The master plan process will continue through fall community outreach and additional technical studies; staff said a refined concept will be presented to the Architectural Review Board July 17 and returned to the public and City Council later in the year.