BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
The city of Palo Alto declined yesterday to release the appraisal it got for the seven acres of the Cubberley Community Center it plans to buy, but said the $65.6 million purchase price reflects the 2024 appraisal if inflation is considered.
The city released a statement about the appraised price on the same day ballots were mailed for the November election, which includes a measure to increase the sales tax by a half-cent in Palo Alto to fund the Cubberley purchase.
The statement said the appraiser, who was not identified, said the seven acres were worth $43.6 to $60.2 million in 2024. With inflation, the $60.2 million would be equal to approximately $65.5 million in 2027, according to the city’s math.
For reasons the city didn’t reveal, it refused to release the actual appraisal. An appraisal typically includes more information about a purchase than just an estimate price, such as an assessment of renovations and upgrades necessary in order to justify the price.
An appraisal will usually contain information on comparable sales, known as “comps.” However, no comparable buildings have been sold in south Palo Alto in the past few years, making a comparison of comps impossible.
“Valuing the Cubberley property is imprecise due to a lack of comparable sites,” the city said in the statement.
In the statement, the city claimed the school district originally asked for $90 million for the seven acres.
That reflects the potential value of leasing the buildings to a private school longterm, the announcement said.
The property is zoned for public facilities, which limits what can get built there and gives priority to government buyers.
Council and the school board reached a long-awaited land deal in October 2024, contingent on the city raising the money to buy seven acres.
The Measure J ballot question doesn’t mention the land purchase, instead focusing on making the buildings safer. The half-cent sales tax increase has no end date, unlike a parcel tax or bond issue.
Only 34% of Palo Alto voters surveyed in January said buying the Cubberley land was very or extremely important, so the city focused the question on areas that had more voter support, like upgrading electrical and plumbing.
The half-cent sales tax is expected to bring in $15.6 million per year.
The city currently owns eight acres at the old high school and wants 15 acres for a rebuilt community center.
The city’s statement said the separate ownership has hindered long-term planning and investment in renovations.
“Consolidating ownership under the city ensures permanent public use and advances the plan to modernize the campus for wellness, arts, culture and outdoor programs,” the announcement said.
A closed-door meeting of council planned to discuss the appraisal was scrubbed yesterday, and instead the city released the statement about the appraisal. It was described as a “joint statement” of the city and Palo Alto school district. Previously, City Manager Ed Shikada said it would be up to the council to decide whether to release the appraisal to the public. Yesterday, it was unclear how council could have authorized the release of the statement without a vote either in a public or closed session beforehand.
The Fry’s site in Palo Alto sold for roughly $17 million/acre. In 2019 the Los Altos School District paid $155M ($13.3M/acre) for land on San Antonio to build a school. If my math is correct, PAUSD is selling the Cubberley land to Palo Alto for ~$9.3m/acre. This sales price doesn’t look like the city is paying top dollar for prime Palo Alto real estate, or that the school district is overcharging for this asset. Also noting the PAUSD/City of PA joint statement (found on PaloAlto.gov) notes the appraisal was $60.65M in 2024, which with 2% inflation brings it up to $65M in 2027 – “over appraisal” isn’t exactly accurate. I very much doubt there will be another opportunity for the city to acquire a 15 acre property in a burgeoning residential area, that offers so much potential to become a world class community treasure, where the public can enjoy arts, sports, green spaces, senior, youth, childcare services and more. I am voting Yes on J.
How is the Fry’s site in any way comparable to Cubberley?
Cubberley is zoned PF for Public Facilities, which limits the owner to public facilities such as a school or a fire house. Under PF, no property is able to produce income from commercial activities.
Fry’s is zoned RM-30 (Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential), with portions also involving GM (General Manufacturing). Those zoning designations allow the owner to make money. That explains why the property surrounding the old Fry’s store was worth so much more.
But comparing the two is really like comparing apples and oranges.
So, Long-Time Resident, you flunk Economics 101.
The property is zoned PF because it is publicly owned. If it were to be sold to a private entity, the city would be required to rezone the land that would allow for a private use. Exactly what use would be the subject to the usual planning process.
You can’t prevent private land from having any development options by zoning it for only public uses. I’m sure that there are people in town who would like to do just that but that’s not what the Constitution allows.
That appraisal actually seems low. If you look at the properties sold off of Middlefield in Menlo Park you probably need to add a one in front of those numbers.
Well your comment is completely useless. You are someone who identifies as a Cubberly lover yet won’t identify yourself or your credentials. I am not in favor of the city’s opaque behavior so I have decided that the $65.5 million purchase price is WAY too expensive.
The Post seems to be ignoring the many factors in the negotiation for the Cubberley sale. While PAUSD may have had the potential to lease the buildings to a private school, that action would have thrown out many of the existing community groups currently using the facilities. The City would still be left with 8 acres of distressed and failing buildings that require major reconstruction and, even if renovated, would not be able to accommodate all of the existing community users. The current plan to consolidate the facilities under the City’s ownership removes the restrictions that hampered the School district in finding a buyer, and insures that the site can become a long-term, vibrant community center serving all of Palo Alto. The property purchase will unlock additional funding sources from partnering non-profit organizations, increase the usable space available to a wide variety of community groups, and expand open space within the center. What’s not to like here? This agreement is overdue and too good fail.
Vote YES on Measure J – for the future.
Palo Alto council: “Let’s keep the appraisal secret and then overbid and let taxpayers pick up the tab.” What the hell, nobody will know the difference. Not so fast. Just say no to Measure J.
This is odd. Seems purposeful. The article names the 2024 valuation but the 2027 sale price. It says right in the press release that the 2024 agreed upon sale price was $60.65M. Seems like the Daily Post is trying to make it seem like an unreasonable number. Either use the $60.65M against the appraisal or escalate the appraisal values by 3 years, too. If we’re going to debate Measure J, let’s do it fairly. Come on.
Jane, let me quote from the article,
“The statement said the appraiser … said the seven acres were worth $43.6 to $60.2 million in 2024. With inflation, the $60.2 million would be equal to approximately $65.5 million in 2027, according to the city’s math.”
The article clearly states the 2024 appraised value and the 2027 projected value.
You say “the Daily Post is trying to make it seem like (it is) an unreasonable number.” Where in the article do you get that? Can you give me the sentence or paragraph where it says that?
If we’re going to debate Measure J, let’s do it fairly, Jane. Come on.
Well, I guess you missed his original article. Which, interestingly, he didn’t post as a separate article but updated this one. I commented on his original article which directly compared the 2024 valuation to the 2027 sale price without pointing that out. I can no longer give you the sentence you requested because Dave Price seems to have finally had the good sense to remove it. Maybe he read my comment and took it to heart. Good.
I think the supporters of Measure J should disclose whether they receive services from the nonprofits that will benefit from the Cubberley renovation, or are employees of those nonprofits. They post comments here and elsewhere making it sound as if they’re just regular citizens. They should disclose their conflict of interest so that we know why they’re pushing Measure J so hard. I think they’re trying to make up for the fact that most people in the community are against Measure J. The city’s polling on this wasn’t wrong.
This is kind of funny. If someone advocates for us investing in parks, is it important that they disclose they have a “conflict of interest” because they plan to use the parks? So, true, for the libraries. Why do you want expanded library hours? Might it be because… you plan to use those services? Yes, I’d imagine some of the supporters of Measure J use and plan to use the many, varied services that Cubberley currently offers and hopes to offer in the future. That’s not a conflict. That’s community and the wonderful amenities of this city. I’m grateful for them and will advocate for Cubberley whether I plan to use it or not (but I’m sure there will be something there for all members of my family!)
Reality Check – The article clearly states there are no comps.
“An appraisal will usually contain information on comparable sales, known as “comps.” However, no comparable buildings have been sold in south Palo Alto in the past few years, making a comparison of comps impossible.
“Valuing the Cubberley property is imprecise due to a lack of comparable sites,” the city said in the statement.”
The city & school district seem hell bent on a sale. A sale is not necessary to make improvements to the site. Stanford Industrial Park leases the land and companies build their improvements, for example. If the intent is to make improvements at Cubberley, the $65 million could instead be spent by the city on improvements.
The appraisal was between $43.6 – $60.2 million. This wide spread is excessive, and with the narrative details of the appraisal, it’s very questionable.
Why didn’t they release the actual appraisal? Doesn’t that seem fishy?
The City’s release of only the results of the Cubberley property appraisal, is a partial answer to one question. However, it creates new questions and fails to address old ones. Here are a few of them.
Why does the City continue to conceal information that is relevant to the voters, i.e., the appraisal itself? What is being withheld from the voting public and why? Who was the appraiser and what were his/her qualifications and relationships that might have affected the result? Upon what assumptions were the appraisal based? With a 38% difference between the high and low estimates, why did the City agree to the highest estimate? Why was a second appraisal not ordered?
Remaining unknown are specific plans for the site, the development timeline, and its cost.
Many of Palo Alto’s less fortunate are straining to pay for housing, food, healthcare, and transportation. Now is not the time to saddle them with an additional sales tax to pay for what some are calling a “do-gooder’s paradise.” The entire proposal to purchase the Cubberley property is not even half-baked; the ingredients have yet to been assembled.
Huh? There was an earlier report that explained how the $65M would be spent. As I recall, the breakdown was $43M for the land, $18M for renovations, and the remainder for contingency. I do not understand why the Yes on J team isn’t being completely open regarding the numbers. Or providing a valid reason for not releasing the appraisal. This is a bungled mess.
345 Middlefield Road in Menlo Park, former 17-acre site USGS campus sold for $130M
The price is different because the zoning is different. Cubberley is zoned PF, which limits the use of the land to government facilities. The USGS site is under a zoning overlay for residential development, which brings in considerably more money than a private buyer purchasing PF zoned property. You’re comparing apples and oranges. The ignorance of the Measure J supporters is astounding!
Are you sure it’s ignorance rather than deception (and greed)?