220‐7626
Palo Alto Cubberley Community Center
Vision Survey
Results of a Study Conducted November 6‐13, 2025
2 Survey Methodology
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) November 6‐13, 2025Dates
Dual‐mode Voter Survey Survey Type
Likely November 2026 Voters in Palo Alto Research Population 407Total Interviews
(Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
(Half Sample) ±7.0% at the 95% Confidence Level
Margin of Sampling Error
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022 & April/May 2025Survey Tracking Tex t
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
3 Q3 Split A & Split B.
3%
28%
33%
13%
23%
Total
Dissatisfied
46%
Total
Satisfied
32%
Impressions of Cubberley Community Center conditions
and its services and programs differ.
16%
45%
15%
3%
22%
Total
Dissatisfied
17%
Total
Satisfied
61%
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Don't know
Condition of Services and Programs
How satisfied are you with the (HALF SAMPLE: condition of) (HALF SAMPLE: services and programs available at) the Cubberley Community Center? 4 Q5.
23%
31%
16%
17%
12%
Great need
Some need
A little need
No real need
Don't know
A Little/
No Real Need
33%
Great/
Some Need
55%
More than half see “great need” or “some need” for additional funding for recreation facilities in Palo Alto.
18% saw a great need for
funding in the March/April
survey, and 58% saw “great” or
“some need.”
In your personal opinion, do you think that Palo Alto has a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds for updated facilities to provide services including classes, camps, fitness programs, or drop‐in casual spaces? 5 Q4.
15%
8%
41%
36%
Needs more space
Could be smaller
About the right size
Don't know
Fewer than one in seven believe that the
Cubberley Community Center needs more space.
To meet the needs of our community, do you think that the Cubberley Community Center needs more space, could be smaller, or is about the right size? 6 Voters heard or read the following description
of the Cubberley Campus ballot measure concept.
Q6. Do you support or oppose this proposal?
The 35 ‐acre Cubberley Campus, located at 4000 Middlefield Road, originally operated as Cubberley High School in 1956. Today, the City owns eight acres of the campus, where it operates a community center for classes and activities in arts, culture, and athletics, and leases additional space at City ‐subsidized rates to various nonprofit and community‐serving groups.
The City and the school district have proposed a ballot measure to purchase an additional seven acres of the site from the Palo Alto Unified School District at a price of $65.5 million. The school district will use the sale proceeds for improvements to schools. Any additional proceeds from the ballot measure would be used to repair, upgrade and redevelop the community campus, creating a destination with activities, amenities, and offerings that promote learning, joy, and wellbeing where all cultures and generations belong.
7 Q6. Do you support or oppose this proposal?.
34%
31%
13%
10%
11%
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Total
Oppose
24%
Total
Support
66%
Two‐thirds support the concept in principle,
with just over one in ten undecided.
8 Q8.
17%
14%
14%
7%
22%
23%
22%
22%
11%
7%
9%
9%
12%
15%
12%
19%
38%
40%
43%
43%
A parcel tax that would be added to your property
tax bill based on the size of your property
A sales tax that would be added to certain purchases
made in the city
A bond measure that would be added to your
property tax bill based on the value of your property
A utility users’ tax that would be added to your utility bill based on a portion of your utility usage
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Don’t Know Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Please indicate whether you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose each of the following ways to fund upgrades to the Cubberley Campus.
Total
Oppose
Total
Support
50%39%
55%37%
55%37%
62%29%
Majorities oppose each specific potential mechanism
when asked without a specific amount attached in the absence of a ballot question format.
9 Q9 a‐d. Please indicate whether you would be very willing, somewhat willing, somewhat unwilling, or very unwilling to support a proposed ballot measure, paying an average of the following amounts per household per year with a combination of funding from other sources to provide specified upgrades to the Cubberley Campus based on preliminary cost estimates ^Not Part of Split Sample 29%
14%
10%
11%
24%
24%
23%
7%
8%
16%
14%
11%
13%
18%
15%
17%
26%
28%
38%
53%
^$250 to purchase land and do minor
renovations and upgrades
$500 to purchase land, build a new recreation
and wellness center and do minor renovations
and upgrades
$750 to purchase land and build a new recreation
and wellness center, performing arts center,
and visual arts and technology center, and do
minor renovations and upgrades
$1,000 to purchase land and build a new
recreation and wellness center, performing arts
center, visual arts and technology center,
and community service flex space
Very Willing Somewhat Willing Don't Know Somewhat Unwilling Very Unwilling Total Unwilling
Total
Willing
39%53%
46%39%
53%32%
71%18%
Willingness to pay without reference to a specific mechanism is limited to $250 per year for minor renovations and upgrades.
Bond Amounts
10 Q9 e‐g. Please indicate whether you would be very willing, somewhat willing, somewhat unwilling, or very unwilling to support a proposed ballot measure, paying an average of the following amounts per household per year with a combination of funding from other sources to provide specified upgrades to the Cubberley Campus based on preliminary cost estimates Split Sample 29%
20%
12%
13%
24%
20%
18%
12%
8%
5%
4%
4%
13%
14%
17%
17%
26%
40%
50%
54%
^$250 to purchase land and do minor
renovations and upgrades
$650 to purchase land, build a new recreation
and wellness area, and do minor renovations
and upgrades
$900 to purchase land, build a new recreation
and wellness center, performing arts center,
and visual arts and technology center, and do
minor renovations and upgrades
$1,100 to purchase land and build a new
recreation and wellness center, performing arts
center, visual arts and technology center,
community service flex space
Very Willing Somewhat Willing Don’t Know Somewhat Unwilling Very Unwilling Total
Unwilling
Total
Willing
39%53%
55%40%
67%30%
71%25%
The same is true for amounts keyed to a parcel tax (specific mechanism was not mentioned, and needs to be, in Poll 3).
Parcel Tax Amounts
11 42%
40%
28%
28%
30%
26%
32%
40%
Improving a downtown community center with a
dedicated space for teens
Making improvements to Rinconada Pool
Upgrading the Ventura Community Center
Developing two acres of parkland into a contemporary
park that honors Asian American history at the location of a historic, Chinese‐owned cannery
Total More Likely Total Less Likely Difference
+12%
+14%
‐4%
‐12%
The structure of this potential measure has not yet been finalized. Given that, additional projects to fund through this measure are under consideration. For each one, please indicate if packaging an additional project would make you more likely or less likely to support the measure, or if it would make no difference to you.
Q11.
Potential additional projects do not dramatically
increase support for the potential package.
12 40%
34%
38%
41%
30%
30%
25%
38%
37%
30%
24%
34%
31%
33%
14%
17%
25%
23%
25%
22%
27%
5%
10%
9%
8%
17%
14%
4%
4%
Meeting current safety, earthquake,
and accessibility standards
^Upgrading buildings to meet current earthquake
safety, plumbing, and electrical standards
Upgrading outdated electrical wiring and plumbing
Upgrading deteriorating electrical wiring
and plumbing
Preserving trees and outdoor space
Preserving trees and green space
^Maintaining outdoor space
Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not Too Important Don’t Know Q12. ^Not Part of Split Sample
Please consider some things that could be priorities in the plan for the future Community Campus at Cubberley. Please indicate how important each one is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
Voters’ top priorities for the future Campus include basic repairs and meeting safety, earthquake and accessibility standards.
Extremely/Very
Important
77%
71%
68%
65%
65%
61%
57%
13 24%
14%
23%
21%
18%
27%
20%
24%
27%
37%
25%
29%
30%
20%
26%
20%
28%
26%
25%
28%
23%
30%
27%
27%
17%
20%
20%
23%
29%
17%
23%
24%
4%
6%
7%
5%
5%
Expanding trees and outdoor spaces
Providing a safe, upgraded space for after‐school
arts education and community involvement
^Providing dedicated space for affordable childcare
Providing after‐school and summer programs for local
children and teens, including Maker Space
Expanding trees and green spaces
Providing safe spaces for children and teens
after school and in the summer
^Providing an emergency evacuation center that can
be used in case of natural disaster
Creating a vibrant destination for youth, families,
and seniors
Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not Too Important Don't Know Extremely/Very Important
51%
51%
49%
49%
48%
47%
46%
43%
Fewer than half highly prioritize dedicated space for children and teens, or providing on emergency evacuation center.
Q11. Please consider some things that could be priorities in the plan for the future Community Campus at Cubberley. Please indicate how important each one is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample 14 16%
13%
24%
18%
18%
11%
11%
16%
9%
25%
29%
17%
23%
22%
29%
29%
21%
26%
28%
31%
31%
36%
34%
24%
36%
38%
39%
24%
21%
19%
21%
20%
31%
20%
23%
24%
6%
5%
8%
6%
5%
4%
Improving accessibility for people with disabilities
^Providing additional space for education
and enrichment
Creating a central hub for recreation and wellness
Providing additional space for youth, family,
and senior programs
Creating space for youth, families, and seniors to
gather and learn
Creating a central hub for music and performing arts
Creating space for youth, families, and seniors to
experience joy
^Providing additional space for recreation
and wellness
Providing space to experience performing arts
Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not Too Important Don't Know Extremely/Very Important
42%
42%
41%
41%
40%
40%
39%
37%
35%
Continued
Q11. Please consider some things that could be priorities in the plan for the future Community Campus at Cubberley. Please indicate how important each one is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample 15 13%
10%
15%
11%
11%
10%
4%
9%
21%
21%
14%
15%
11%
12%
16%
8%
33%
40%
30%
34%
31%
38%
26%
31%
25%
25%
38%
35%
45%
32%
48%
48%
8%
4%
5%
8%
6%
^Providing community and flex space
Providing space for gathering and community building
^Building a new, state‐of‐the‐art community center
Providing space to experience visual arts
Providing an outdoor amphitheater
Upgrading the Cubberley theater
Creating space for Lunar New Year and
other cultural celebrations
Providing an outdoor swimming pool
Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not Too Important Don't Know Extremely/Very Important
34%
32%
29%
26%
22%
22%
20%
18%
Voters’ lowest priorities include an outdoor swimming pool, an upgraded theater, or an outdoor amphitheater.
Q11. Please consider some things that could be priorities in the plan for the future Community Campus at Cubberley. Please indicate how important each one is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample 16 Support for the proposed concept remains at or near two‐thirds as voters hear positive and negative messaging.
Q6. Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Q14. Having learned this, would you support or oppose the proposal for the City to purchase the Cubberley site, and repair, upgrade, and redevelop the community campus, creating a destination with activities, amenities, and offerings that promote learning, joy, and wellbeing where all cultures and generations belong? Q16. One last time: Do you support or oppose the proposal for the City to purchase the Cubberley site, and repair, upgrade, and redevelop the community campus? 34%
35%
31%
31%
36%
33%
11%
5%
13%
13%
17%
10%
13%
15%
Initial Opinion
Opinion After Positives
Opinion After Positives and
Negatives
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Don’t Know Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Total Oppose
Total
Support
24%66%
26%71%
31%64%
17 Ranked by Very Convincing
(STANDARDS) Most Cubberley Community Center buildings are more than 70 years old. They were built well before modern internet, and do not meet current disabled access and earthquake safety standards. Palo Alto residents deserve a community center that is modern, safe, and accessible to the entire community. 38%
(REPAIRS) Cubberley Community Center facilities have significant structural issues with deteriorating electrical wiring and plumbing. Most buildings are beyond their useful life and would be very costly to repair . That’s why we should invest in a new, safe, accessible, and modern facility for our community to share in the future. 38%
^(AFFORDABILITY) As the cost of living goes up, it is more important now than ever to invest in free or low ‐cost places for exercise and play that everyone can use close to home. Palo Alto should invest in creating an affordable, accessible place where people can gather to learn, play, read, enjoy the arts, access childcare, experience joy, and connect with one another .
31%
^(EMERGENCY) Palo Alto needs an up ‐to‐date and safe location for the community to shelter in times of emergency, such as an earthquake or fire, or during hot or smoky days. The new Community Campus will serve as a resilience hub built to earthquake safety and accessibility standards, providing refuge when we need it most.
29%
Q13. Please consider the following statements from people who may support this proposal. Please indicate whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support it. ^Not Part of Split Sample
Top Messaging in Favor of the Cubberley Proposal
(Ranked in Order of Effectiveness)
18 Conclusions
19 Conclusions
• While voters generally support upgrades to the Cubberley Center, their willingness to invest is limited to a smaller package focused on basic repairs and upgrades to earthquake, safety and accessibility standards.
They are dissatisfied with the condition of existing facilities. Voters do not see Cubberley as needing additional space. No mechanism tested (in isolation without amounts) achieves majority support. Slim majorities are willing to pay $250 per year for basic renovations. • Most are satisfied with the current programs and services offered at Cubberley. • Voters who oppose additional investment in Cubberley are opposed to increasing taxes or see higher priorities for the city.
• The next poll will vet ballot measure language, marrying specific mechanism, amount, and uses of funds for voter consideration.
Curt Below
[email protected]
Miranda Everitt
[email protected]