Cubberley
Community Center
Project
May 18, 2026 www.paloalto.gov/improvecubberley
2 CUBBERLEY PROJECT
• Adopt the CEQA Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Resolution) and Cubberley
Conceptual Master Plan
• Receive results of the 4th poll
• Provide direction on next steps
3 COMMUNITY VISION FOR CUBBERLEY
A vibrant, beloved, and adaptable destination
that promotes learning, interconnectivity,
joy and wellbeing where all cultures and
generations belong.
4 CURRENT SITE
5 Conceptual Master Plan and Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration
6 CUBBERLEY CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
Conceptual Master Plan represents a long-term vision for Cubberley that includes a combination of renovated and new buildings.
Phasing allows for the site to be improved over time as funding is secured and minimizes program disruption during construction.
Phases could be developed incrementally depending on funding and partner readiness.
The plan represents a concept that should be considered adaptable and dynamic as the project phases continue to progress.
7 PHASING
Property Acquisition
Phase One
•
Could be developed incrementally
o
Recreation Wellness Center / Gym
o
Theatre and performing arts complex
o
Renovation of remaining buildings
o
Parking and tennis
o
Education Building
Phase Two
•
Visual arts and technology
Phase Three
•
Community Services/Rental space/Flexible Space
8 9
INDOOR & OUTDOOR SPACES & PARKING - PROPOSED
Outdoor Space
250,000 SF
EXISTING SITE
PHASE 1
PHASE 2 and 3
Outdoor Space
415,000 SF
Outdoor Space
390,000 SF
Indoor Space
184,000 SF
Indoor Space
232,250 SF
Indoor Space
284,000SF
520
Parking
840
Parking
640
Parking
10 SPACE for EXISTING and NEW USES
Community
Campus
Existing User Groups
-Ballroom Dance
-Senior Table Tennis
-Sports Clubs
-Education
Existing Nonprofit
Tenants
New Partners
-Friends of the RWC
-TheatreWorks
-Avenidas
-Maker Nexus
-PACCC
New City
Programs and
Services
11 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
• Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) • Five environmental resources identified where impacts were found to be "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" • Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation
• Public review and comment March 2 – April 1, 2026.
• Seven written comments received (VTA and public)
• Verbal comments at joint ARB/PTC meeting on March 11
12 ADOPTING the MND and CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Allows phases to advance, including near term
renovations and partner led improvements, and
ensures potential impacts have been analyzed.
5 Results of 4th Community Poll
14 RESULTS of the FOURTH COMMUNITY POLL
• Fourth poll released: March 19 – 28, 2026
• Test ballot measure language, informed by prior polling. • Evaluated whether partnership opportunities and
additional revenue sources such as development fees, grants and philanthropy will increase voter support for a ballot measure. • Poll examined whether the presence of competing tax
measures influenced voter willingness to support a ballot measure.
220-7878
Palo Alto Voter Views of a
Potential Ballot Measure
Key Findings of a Survey Conducted March 18-26, 2026
16 Dates March 18-26, 2026
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2026 Voters in Palo Alto Total Interviews 411
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level (Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
Survey Tracking 2013, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022,
April/May 2025, November 2025 & January 2026
Survey Methodology
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
17 Context
18 Q1.
61%
43% 40% 41% 37% 39% 41%
36%25% 37% 34% 35%
27% 27% 25% 26%
14%
20%
27% 24%
36% 34% 34%
38%
2016 2018 2021 2022 April/May
2025
November
2025
January
2026
March
2026
Right Direction Wrong Direction Don't Know
First, would you say things in Palo Alto are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are headed in the wrong direction? Palo Alto voters hold mixed views about
the direction of life in the city overall.
19 Q13 & Q14.
Yes
15% No
78%
Prefer
Not to
Say
7%
Yes
63%
No
36%
Prefer
Not to
Say
1%
Three in five likely voters have visited Cubberley Community Center, while about one in six have taken part in discussions about it.
First, have you ever taken part in past workshops,
community meetings, or town hall discussions about plans for the Community Campus at the Cubberley site?
Have you or has someone in your household
visited Cubberley Community Center to
participate in classes or programs there?
20 Q5.
12%
34%
17%
18%
19%
Great need
Some need
A little need
No real need
Don't know
A Little/
No Real Need
35%
Great/
Some Need
46%
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 to provide safety, electrical, and other basic updates for community center facilities? Fewer than half believe that the City has “a great need” or “some need” for additional funding to update community center facilities. 21 Q3. Wording Slightly Different in Previous Survey
12%
4%
7%
6%
5%
5%
34%
24%
25%
26%
31%
35%
17%
18%
18%
20%
18%
19%
18%
32%
20%
32%
36%
31%
19%
21%
29%
15%
10%
11%
March 2026
January 2026
2020
2018
2016
2013
Great Need Some Need A Little Need No Real Need Don't Know Great/ Some Need
46%
29%
33%
32%
36%
40%
This is a greater share than those who believed there was a “great need” or “some need” for updated facilities to provide services.
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 to provide safety, electrical, and other basic updates for community center facilities? In your personal opinion, do you think that Palo Alto has a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additio nal funds for updated facilities to provide services including classes, camps, fitness programs, or drop-in casual spaces? 22 Initial Views of a Ballot Measure
23 Q2. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
24%
23%
8%
4%
11%
23%
7%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
City of Palo Alto Community Safety/Services Measure. To provide general city services such as repairing Cubberley Community Center for current safety, earthquake, accessibility standards; upgrading deteriorating electrical systems, wiring, plumbing; acquiring outdoor space/sites; maintaining streets, safe, clean downtown/commercial cores; preparing for natural disasters; repairing deteriorating community spaces, libraries, shall City of Palo Alto’s measure enacting a 0.5% (1/2¢) sales tax, providing approximately $15,600,000 annually until ended by voters, with published financial audits, all funds used locally, be adopted?
Total
Yes
55%
Total
No
37%
A sales-tax measure begins with support from
a majority – right at the margin of error for passage.
Vote Threshold 50%+1 and Margin of Error ±4.9%
24 Q2. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
January 2026
City of Palo Alto Community Safety/Services Measure. To provide general city services such as repairing Cubberley Community Center for current safety, earthquake, accessibility standards; upgrading deteriorating electrical systems, wiring, plumbing; acquiring outdoor space/sites; maintaining streets, safe, clean downtown/commercial cores; preparing for natural disasters; repairing deteriorating community spaces, libraries, shall City of Palo Alto’s measure enacting a 0.5% (1/2¢) sales tax, providing approximately $15,600,000 annually until ended by voters, with published financial audits, all funds used locally, be adopted? March 2026
City of Palo Alto Community Safety/Services Measure. To provide general city services such as repairing Cubberley Community Center for current safety, earthquake, accessibility standards; upgrading deteriorating electrical systems, wiring, plumbing; acquiring outdoor space/sites; maintaining streets, safe, clean downtown/commercial cores; preparing for natural disasters/earthquakes; repairing deteriorating community spaces, libraries, shall City of Palo Alto’s measure enacting a
0.5% (1/2¢) sales tax, providing approximately $15,600,000 annually until ended by voters, subject to published independent audit, all funds used locally, be adopted?
Support is seven points higher than it was in January.
24%
22%
23%
14%
8%
12%
7%
11%
4% 11%
14%
23%
23%
March 2026
January 2026
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Undecided, Lean Yes Undecided Undecided, Lean No Probably No Definitely No Total Yes
Total
No
55% 37%
48% 41%
25 Nearly two-thirds of Democrats support the measure;
less than half of independent or Republican voters do.
Q2. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Initial Vote by Party, Gender & Age
29%
17%
14%
24%
25%
28%
20%
23%
25%
23%
13%
21%
26%
22%
24%
25%
9%
7%
9%
7%
6%
10%
8%
7%
8%
8%
6%
8%
5%
8%
9%
6%
4%
8%
8%
14%
14%
11%
11%
11%
12%
8%
18%
25%
49%
25%
21%
25%
25%
19%
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
Men
Women
18-49
50-64
65+
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Undecided, Lean Yes Undecided Undecided, Lean No Probably No Definitely No Total Yes
Total
No
64% 29%
47% 45%
29% 62%
54% 40%
57% 35%
55% 39%
55% 37%
56% 35%
26 There is no difference in support among those who
have visited Cubberley versus those who have not.
Q2. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Initial Vote by Palo Alto Need for Funding & Taken Classes at Cubberly Community Center 34%
12%
23%
25%
24%
32%
16%
15%
21%
27%
11%
4%
6%
9%
5%
5%
6%
15%
7%
8%
4%
4%
4%
4%
6%
15%
13%
10%
12%
7%
44%
24%
24%
21%
Great/Some Need
A Little/No Real Need
Don't Know
Visited Cubberley
Have Not
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Undecided, Lean Yes Undecided Undecided, Lean No Probably No Definitely No Total Yes
Total
No
77% 17%
32% 62%
44% 41%
55% 38%
56% 36%
27 There is no difference in support between north and south areas.
Q2. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Initial Vote by North/South of Oregon Expressway
24%
24%
24%
23%
7%
9%
8%
7% 5%
11%
10%
22%
24%
South
North
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Undecided, Lean Yes Undecided Undecided, Lean No Probably No Definitely No Total
Yes
Total
No
55% 37%
55% 38%
28 Q2. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Q3.
24%
23%
8%
4%
11%
23%
7%
Half-Cent Quarter-Cent
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
No
37%
Total
Yes
55%
28%
15%
11%
5%
7%
22%
12%
Lowering the amount of the tax does not increase support.
Total
No
34%
Total
Yes
54%
The final structure of this measure has not been determined. If it enacted a 0.25% (1/4¢) sales tax instead of a 0.5% (1/2¢) sales tax, providing approximately $7,800,000 annually instead of $15,600,000 annually, until ended by voters, would you vote yes or no? 29 Q2. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Q4.
24%
23%
8%
4%
11%
23%
7%
Until Ended by Voters 30-Year Sunset
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
No
37%
Total
Yes
55%
20%
10%
13%
7%
8%
27%
16%
Voters are less likely to support a measure with a 30-year sunset than one that is in effect until ended by voters.
Total
No
43%
Total
Yes
42%
And if it were instead written to end automatically after 30 years, would you vote yes or no? 30 The Impact of
Additional Information
31 When informed that the measure would fund Cubberley upgrades, one in five “no” voters say they may be more likely to support it.
Q6.
If you knew that a portion of this measure’s revenue would be dedicated to repairing the 70-year-old Cubberley Center to meet current safety, earthquake, accessibility standards; upgrade outdated and deteriorating electrical systems and plumbing and purchase Cubberley Community Center land thereby preserving trees and outdoor space, would you be more likely or less likely to support this potential measure, or would it make no difference to you? 21%
33%
5%
9%
27%
34%
17%
28%
40%
25%
57%
61%
7%
7%
8%
5%
12%
All Voters
Among "Yes" Voters
Among "No" Voters
Among Undecided
Voters
Much More Likely to Support Somewhat More Likely to Support Makes No Difference Somewhat Less Likely to Support Much Less Likely to Support Total
More
Likely to
Support
Total
Less
Likely to
Support
48% 12%
67% 8%
22% 21%
37% 1%
32 Three in five undecided voters say they would be more likely to support a measure knowing about the partnerships involved.
Q7.
The City is currently developing partnerships to bring tens of millions of dollars from private donors to the Cubberley Community Center for performing arts, wellness, maker space, and recreation facilities. Would knowing that these dollars would be leveraged to reduce the overall taxpayer cost while keeping the Cubberley Community Center property publicly owned, updated for basic safety and current accessibility requirements make you more or less likely to vote yes on the measure? 31%
48%
9%
21%
35%
34%
35%
41%
26%
15%
43%
14%
5%
6%
22%
7%
All Voters
Among "Yes" Voters
Among "No" Voters
Among Undecided
Voters
Much More Likely to Support Somewhat More Likely to Support Makes No Difference Somewhat Less Likely to Support Much Less Likely to Support Total
More
Likely to
Support
Total
Less
Likely to
Support
66% 9%
81% 3%
43% 13%
62% 24%
33 Most undecided voters are “somewhat more likely” to support a measure knowing that non-residents and businesses will pay, too.
Q8.
If you knew that non-residents who shop in Palo Alto and businesses will pay a portion of the sales tax, meaning that close to 40% of the overall amount raised to meet essential city needs will be paid by non-residents, would you be more likely or less likely to support this potential measure, or would it make no difference to you? 18%
27%
7%
29%
35%
18%
43%
44%
33%
64%
28%
6%
5%
4%
26%
7%
All Voters
Among "Yes" Voters
Among "No" Voters
Among Undecided
Voters
Much More Likely to Support Somewhat More Likely to Support Makes No Difference Somewhat Less Likely to Support Much Less Likely to Support Total
More
Likely to
Support
Total
Less
Likely to
Support
47% 9%
62% 5%
25% 11%
45% 26%
34 One-third of voters overall are less likely to support the measure knowing it is on the same ballot as the regional sales tax.
Q9.
If a regional transportation sales tax of one half-cent were on the same ballot as a City of Palo Alto sales tax measure, would you be more likely or less likely to support the Palo Alto sales tax measure, or would it make no difference to you? 6%
11%
7%
9%
9%
53%
53%
59%
28%
17%
19%
15%
23%
17%
8%
24%
40%
All Voters
Among "Yes" Voters
Among "No" Voters
Among Undecided
Voters
Much More Likely to Support Somewhat More Likely to Support Makes No Difference Somewhat Less Likely to Support Much Less Likely to Support Total
More
Likely to
Support
Total
Less
Likely to
Support
13% 34%
20% 27%
2% 39%
9% 63%
35 Messaging and Movement
36 Support for the measure declines as voters learn more about it.
Q2 & Q11. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Q12. One last time: Would you vote yes or no on the measure titled: City of Palo Alto Community Safety/ Services Measure? 24%
25%
22%
23%
17%
15%
8%
9%
9%
7%
13%
12%
4% 11%
7%
11%
23%
28%
28%
Initial Vote
After Additional
Information and Positive
Messaging
After Negative Messaging
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Undecided, Lean Yes Undecided Undecided, Lean No Probably No Definitely No Total Yes
Total
No
55% 37%
51% 37%
46% 42%
Vote Threshold 50%+1 and Margin of Error ±4.9%
37 Ranked by Very Convincing
29%
(STANDARDS) Most Cubberley Community Center buildings are more than 70 years old. They were built well before the 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. 27%
*(OUTDOOR SPACE) As our city grows and changes, we must protect green space and trees for the value they provide. The funds used to update the Cubberley Community Center will also preserve outdoor space and trees on the site for all in the community to enjoy.
27%
(WITHOUT) Without this measure, the Cubberley Community Center will continue to fall apart and become increasingly outdated and even more expensive to maintain. It will soon become unsafe and obsolete.
This measure invests in ensuring our community has a safe, up-to-date place to gather, learn and play. 24%
(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, experience joy, and connect with one another.
24%
(STREETS) Funding from this measure will ensure the City can better repair streets and sidewalks, improve traffic flow especially near trains, fix potholes, and provide safe routes to school for children.
Q10. First, please consider the following statements from people who may support this measure. For each one, please indicate whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes. *Split Sample
Messaging in Support of the Measure
38 Ranked by Very Convincing
23%
(ACT LOCAL) With state and federal budget cuts, we must act locally to protect Palo Alto’s unique quality of life.
This measure will help maintain the City’s fiscal stability by improving fire and police protection, emergency response, streets, parks, and youth and senior services, and address traffic with locally controlled funding that the State or Federal governments can’t take. 22%
(PARTNERS) This measure represents a unique opportunity for Palo Alto taxpayers to invest in an upgraded Cubberley Community Center for less money. Through partnerships with local nonprofits that are committing tens of millions of dollars to the project, we can reduce taxpayer costs. 21%
(REPAIRS) Cubberley Community Center facilities have significant structural issues with deteriorating electrical wiring and plumbing. That’s why we should prudently invest in a new, safe, accessible and modern facility for our community to share into the future.
19%
(ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure will have strict accountability provisions, including independent financial audits, to ensure that funds are spent efficiently, effectively, and as promised. 16%
*(CHILDREN) There are too few affordable places for children and teens to gather, learn and play outside of school hours in our community. Upgrading and repairing the Cubberley Community Center will provide safe spaces for children and teens after school and in the summer so that they are off the street, near adult supervision, and staying out of trouble.
Q10. First, please consider the following statements from people who may support this measure. For each one, please indicate whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes. *Split Sample
Messaging, Continued
39 Q10. First, please consider the following statements from people who may support this measure. For each one, please indicate whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes. *Split Sample
29%
27%
27%
24%
24%
23%
22%
21%
19%
16%
33%
33%
32%
34%
30%
34%
40%
41%
36%
33%
62%
60%
59%
58%
54%
58%
61%
63%
55%
49%
Standards
*Outdoor Space
Without
Affordability
Streets
Act Local
Partners
Repairs
Accountability
*Children
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
Messaging in support of the measure
does not connect with much intensity.
40 Voters also heard or read a brief statement opposed.
Q12. One last time: Would you vote yes or no on the measure titled: City of Palo Alto Community Safety/ Services Measure? Next, opponents of this measure say that at a time when the cost of living is skyrocketing, the last thing we should do is raise our taxes even more. We are already facing another potential half-cent sales tax increase for Bay Area transit on the same ballot.
And anyway, our community has higher priorities right now than purchasing land and upgrading the community center. The City should cut waste and mismanagement of funds before asking to raise our taxes again.
41 Q2. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Q12. One last time: Would you vote yes or no on the measure titled: City of Palo Alto Community Safety/ Services Measure? 24%
23%
8%
4%
11%
23%
7%
Initial Vote After Negative Messaging
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
No
37%
Total
Yes
55%
22%
15%
9%
3%
11%
28%
12%
After this brief negative message, fewer than half support the measure, with more intensity on the “no” side.
Total
No
42%
Total
Yes
46%
Vote Threshold 50% +1, Margin of Error +/-4.9%
Curt Below
[email protected]
Miranda Everitt
[email protected]
15 RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the PTC, ARB, and PRC recommend the Council
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the Final Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and associated
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Adopt the Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan
Staff recommend the Council provide direction on next steps.
16 EXAMPLES OF NEXT STEPS
1. Direct staff to pursue a ballot measure for a new ¼ or ½ cent sales tax in the November 2028 General Election
• Staff to bring forward a Resolution and other required documents on June 8
OR
2. Direct staff to engage with PAUSD to purchase 7 acres from PAUSD using existing funding sources
KRISTEN O’KANE
Community Services Director
Kristen.O’[email protected]
(650) 463-4908
CHRISTINE PARAS
ASD Assistant Director
[email protected]
(650) 329-2486