On40Acres

Cubberley, Measure J, and the Paper Trail

October 12, 2026
parkscommunitygovernment financemunicipalityCubberleypolicy
A community meeting in the Cubberley Community Center gym, residents at round tables reviewing site plans

On November 3, Palo Alto votes on Measure J, a half-cent sales tax that the City expects to raise about $15.6 million a year. Legally it's a general tax: the money goes into the General Fund. Everyone understands what it's really for, though. The Council's spending guidelines say it intends to use the proceeds to buy seven acres of Cubberley Community Center from the Palo Alto Unified School District for $65.5 million, and then to rebuild the place.

We've been writing about Cubberley for a long time. Our 2016 proposal imagined the site as a community center joined to a real park, with native planting, shade over the fields and a perimeter trail. That would make it a destination instead of a drop-off zone. So we're glad to see public money finally pointed at it. Still, $65.5 million of public land changing hands between two public agencies deserves a careful look. Before deciding how we feel about Measure J, we went looking for the paper trail. This is what we found.

The deal, briefly

Cubberley covers about 35 acres at 4000 Middlefield Road. The City already owns about 8 of them, and the school district owns the other 27 or so. The City has leased the district's land since 1990.

In October 2024, after roughly 18 months of negotiation and a mediator, the City Council and the school board approved a memorandum of understanding:

  • What: the City would buy 7 acres, the developed core with the permanent buildings, for $65.5 million in 2027. That figure is a 2024 valuation of $60.65 million escalated 2.6% a year.
  • Condition: the sale depends on voters approving funding in November 2026. If the measure isn't on the ballot or fails, "the proposed sale will not occur."
  • Meanwhile: the City leases the rest of the district's land, mostly playing fields and parking, for $2 million a year, rising to $2.5 million once the district stops using its share.
  • Proceeds: the district plans to spend the money on facilities at its other schools.

The MOU is explicit that it's not a binding contract. A purchase and sale agreement still has to be written. Both bodies have been negotiating in closed session as recently as September. In the Mayor's words, "A deal is never done."

How a school district is supposed to sell land

California doesn't let a public agency simply hand public land to a buyer, even when the buyer is another public agency. Two sets of rules apply.

The Surplus Land Act (Government Code §§ 54220–54234) applies to school districts. Before disposing of land, the board must formally declare it either "surplus land" or "exempt surplus land." That happens at a public meeting, backed by written findings. A transfer to another public agency for that agency's own use is one of the exemptions (§ 54221(f)(1)(D)), so a sale to the City would almost certainly qualify. But exempt doesn't mean invisible. The district still has to send its declaration to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through HCD's portal, and it can't complete the transfer until HCD responds or 30 days pass. In 2025 the Legislature narrowed the exemptions available to school districts (AB 130), but the inter-agency exemption survived.

The Education Code, along with PAUSD's own Board Policy 3280, lays out the district's side. Before selling surplus property, the policy calls for:

  • a district advisory committee (the "7-11 committee"), unless an exception applies;
  • a report to the City's planning agency on whether the sale fits the General Plan;
  • a decision on whether CEQA review is needed;
  • priority to the public agencies the law names;
  • a resolution of intention to sell, passed by a two-thirds vote in open session.

None of this is exotic. It's how a community makes sure that land it paid for doesn't leave public hands without a public record of why.

What the record shows

We searched the district's BoardDocs archive (agendas, minutes, policies and attachments) for any surplus declaration covering Cubberley. We didn't find one. No resolution declares the seven acres surplus or exempt surplus land, and no item cites the Surplus Land Act or forms a 7-11 committee for the site. The City's public statements don't mention it either. The closest any official document comes is the October 5 joint statement, which says "state law prioritizes public agency buyers" and the site "is zoned for public facility use."

To be fair, the timing allows for this. The declaration has to come before the land changes hands, not before an MOU or an election, and the sale isn't scheduled until 2027. Nothing here amounts to a violation. Still, voters are being asked to fund the purchase now, while the formal finding that the district doesn't need this land, the step the law treats as the start of the process, hasn't happened in public yet.

Three things that don't line up

Reading the documents side by side, a few details stood out.

1. "Finalized." In August the school board took up Resolution 2026-27.07, which sends the $65.5 million into the district's capital-outlay fund and adopts a spending plan. The resolution posted to BoardDocs begins: "WHEREAS, the District has finalized the sale of the Cubberley Community Center site." The staff memo says the sale "is being finalized." Neither is true yet. The sale depends on an election that hasn't happened, under a contract that hasn't been written. Unlike the spending plan behind it, the resolution's text never mentions that contingency.

2. The numbers swap. That August plan puts 28% ($18.3 million) toward planned maintenance and 67% ($43.9 million) toward modernization. A month later the board's resolution supporting Measure J describes the same plan the other way around: "$43.9 million (67%) to school maintenance" and $18.3 million to modernization. Maybe it's a typo, and the posted versions may have been fixed before adoption. But when the main argument for a tax is what the money will do, the two official descriptions ought to match.

3. A bond became a tax. Every founding document conditions the sale on voter approval of a bond. That includes the MOU ("contingent on November 2026 voter approval of a City-sponsored bond"), the October 2024 board item ("a General Obligation Bond") and the lease amendment ("a bond measure"). A general obligation bond borrows money for a stated capital purpose and is repaid by a property tax that ends when the debt is paid. Measure J is a general sales tax with no end date. Its revenue goes to the General Fund, and its tie to Cubberley rests on spending guidelines the Council itself calls advisory. We found no document that updates the contingency. Since the MOU isn't binding, this is a question of candor rather than law. It's still a fair one: voters who approve J are approving a different kind of promise than the one the deal was built on.

The price

The City's 2024 appraisal valued the land at $43.6 million to $60.2 million, and the district had asked for $90 million. The agreed base valuation, $60.65 million, sits just above the top of the appraiser's range. The City has declined to release the appraisal itself. The Council scheduled a special meeting for October 12 to discuss releasing more Cubberley documents. Releasing the appraisal would let voters judge the price for themselves.

What happens if J fails

The lease amendment answers this. If the measure fails, either side may end the lease effective any time after June 30, 2027, on 180 days' notice, after meeting at least once "in good faith to discuss alternative plans." One councilmember has floated other ways to buy the land. Another possibility that has come up is the district leasing the site to private schools while the land appreciates.

The part we care most about

All of this concerns the seven developed acres. The twenty or so acres of fields, about 16 acres of which the lease describes as outdoor recreational area, stay with the school district under lease. That's the part of Cubberley closest to what we've always hoped it could become.

If those fields are ever offered for sale, the stakes change. California's Naylor Act gives cities and park agencies a priority right to buy school playing fields, often below market price, precisely so that open space doesn't quietly turn into something else. Whatever happens on November 3, we'd like the City and the district to say plainly that the fields stay public open space. We'd also like the planning for the developed core to treat the land around the buildings as part of a park, not as leftover space.

Questions worth asking before you vote

  • When will the PAUSD board formally declare the seven acres exempt surplus land, and will that declaration and HCD's response be posted publicly?
  • Will the board form a 7-11 advisory committee, or rely on an exception? If an exception, which one?
  • Will the City release the full 2024 appraisal before November 3?
  • Do the City and district consider a general sales tax to satisfy the MOU's "bond" contingency, and will they update the documents to say so?
  • Which allocation is correct, 67% to modernization or 67% to maintenance?
  • What commitment, if any, protects the remaining fields as open space?

None of these questions is an argument against fixing Cubberley. They're how a community makes sure the fix is one it actually chose.

Sources: PAUSD BoardDocs (Oct 8, 2024 term sheet and MOU; Dec 17, 2024 lease amendment; Aug 18, 2026 Resolution 2026-27.07 and Facilities Improvement Funding Plan; Sept 15, 2026 Resolution 2026-27.12; Board Policy 3280); City of Palo Alto news releases of Oct 3, 2024 and Oct 5, 2026; Palo Alto Online; Palo Alto Daily Post; HCD Surplus Land Act Guidelines; legal alerts on AB 130 (AALRR, ACSA).