Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cubberley Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palo Alto staff outlines Cubberley master-plan timeline, poll results and near-term activation ideas
Summary
City staff and consultants presented three conceptual site layouts, results from a 437-voter poll showing strongest support for building repairs and green space, and a strategic activation plan to raise public awareness ahead of a likely 2026 ballot measure.
City staff, project consultants and the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed progress on the Cubberley Community Center master-plan process, poll results and a draft “strategic activation” approach intended to build public support ahead of a potential November 2026 funding measure.
Assistant Director Amanda Demmel said the master-plan process will proceed through summer review with the Planning & Transportation Commission (July 9) and the Architectural Review Board (July 17), a third community meeting in September and a city-council presentation in December. Concordia — the consultant facilitating the master plan — will return a single refined concept to the community before the council considers a master-plan recommendation.
The consultant team and staff emphasized why the question matters: existing Cubberley buildings were built between 1945 and 1968 and a 2022 facilities assessment found most buildings are approaching end of useful life. Christine Perras, assistant director for administrative services, said the master plan will be used to prepare cost estimates and phasing for council consideration and for later CEQA review.
Concordia presented three conceptual layouts — described in the materials as “diagonal,” “grid” and “linear” — that vary building arrangement, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and the configuration of green space and parking. Staff noted that all three concepts increase both indoor and outdoor area compared with the current site: outdoor space shown in the concepts rises from about 250,000 to roughly 335,000 square feet, indoor area from about 184,000 to 280,000 square feet, and parking area in the concepts rises from about 121,000 to 210,000 square feet.
The project team also reported findings from a poll of 437 Palo Alto registered voters conducted April 28–May 7 by FM3. The poll found the topics that most moved respondents were (1) efficient use and accountability for taxpayer dollars, (2) basic building repairs and safety upgrades — electrical, plumbing and seismic improvements — and (3) retaining or increasing green space on site. Polling showed a majority of likely voters willing to pay up to $250 per household per year for a project framed around those priorities, while larger dollar amounts (for example $500/year) did not reach the two-thirds support usually required for a parcel tax or general-obligation bond. Perras said the city plans two more polls: a second (fall 2025) that will test refined concepts and phased funding scenarios and a third (spring 2026) that will test actual ballot language.
Staff also described a draft strategic activation plan intended to bring people to Cubberley while the master plan proceeds. Ideas discussed included temporary events, pop-up programming, art installations and smaller physical enhancements to increase community awareness. The draft plan is phased to align with master planning, community engagement and polling, and an anticipated ballot campaign. Staff asked the commission for feedback on activation ideas and whether the commission would like to play a role supporting activations.
Next formal milestones are the Planning & Transportation Commission review on July 9, the Architectural Review Board on July 17, a community meeting in September and a council briefing in December. If a funding measure is placed on the ballot and passes, staff said detailed design and CEQA would follow; final adoption of a master plan is expected to align with that follow-up work.
The commission discussed the concepts and the polling results and urged staff and consultants to make clear on public materials the difference between “green space” (landscaped, tree‑canopied areas) and “outdoor activity space” (courts, fields, hard surfaces) because respondents interpreted those terms differently. Commissioners also asked staff to clarify how school-district-owned playing fields adjacent to Cubberley could affect long-term site planning and whether structured or partially underground parking could support large canopy trees above.
Staff materials and the consultant’s community summary are available on the Cubberley project page on the city website. Staff will return with a refined concept after summer outreach and with the activation plan for council review in August.
