HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-23 Parks & Recreation Commission Agenda PacketPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 23, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
7:00 PM
Parks and Recreation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to
attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still
maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate
from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the
meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in
person. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o n
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and
report are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐
Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)
Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for
inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing
in your subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To
uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage
devices are not accepted.
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the Commission on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on this
agenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
This is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve meeting
management.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of the Draft Minutes from the December 19, 2023, Parks and Recreation
Commission Special Meeting – Action – Attachment – (5 min)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
2.Department Report – (20 min)
BUSINESS ITEMS
3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair – Chair – Action – (20 min)
4.Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Ozzy Arce – Discussion –
Attachment – (45 min)
5.Golf Annual Report – Lam Do – Discussion – Attachment – (45 min)
6.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion – (15 min)
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingTuesday, January 23, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid7:00 PMParks and Recreation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andreport are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To
uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage
devices are not accepted.
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the Commission on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on this
agenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
This is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve meeting
management.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of the Draft Minutes from the December 19, 2023, Parks and Recreation
Commission Special Meeting – Action – Attachment – (5 min)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
2.Department Report – (20 min)
BUSINESS ITEMS
3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair – Chair – Action – (20 min)
4.Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Ozzy Arce – Discussion –
Attachment – (45 min)
5.Golf Annual Report – Lam Do – Discussion – Attachment – (45 min)
6.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion – (15 min)
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingTuesday, January 23, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid7:00 PMParks and Recreation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andreport are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public wishing to address the Commission on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on thisagenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThis is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve meetingmanagement.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.Approval of the Draft Minutes from the December 19, 2023, Parks and RecreationCommission Special Meeting – Action – Attachment – (5 min)CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS2.Department Report – (20 min)BUSINESS ITEMS3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair – Chair – Action – (20 min)4.Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Ozzy Arce – Discussion –Attachment – (45 min)5.Golf Annual Report – Lam Do – Discussion – Attachment – (45 min)6.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion – (15 min)COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
DRAFT
DRAFT 1
1
2
3
MINUTES 4
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5
SPECIAL MEETING 6
December 19, 2023 7
In-Person & Virtual Conference 8
Palo Alto, California 9
10
Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield, Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Anne Cribbs, 11
Nellis Freeman, Joy Oche 12
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Shani Kleinhaus, Bing Wei 13
Others Present: 14
Staff Present: Kristen O’Kane, Adam Howard, Lam Do, Javod Ghods 15
16
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17
Chair Greenfield called the meeting to order. A roll call was taken with five present. 18
PUBLIC COMMENT 19
None. 20
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 21
None. 22
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 24, 2023, Parks and Recreation 24
Commission Regular Meeting 25
Vice Chair Brown made a motion to approve the October minutes. Commissioner 26
Freeman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 5-0 roll call vote. 27
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the November 28, 2023, Parks and Recreation 28
Commission Regular Meeting 29
1
Packet Pg. 4
DRAFT
DRAFT 2
Commissioner Oche noted that the word "tracking" in line 26 should be "applying." 1
Vice Chair Brown made a motion to approve the October minutes. Commissioner Oche 2
seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 5-0 roll call vote. 3
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 4
3. Department Report 5
Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director, noted that the Department of Community 6
Services has hired Amanda Deml to fill the role of Assistant Director for the Arts and 7
Sciences, to start January 16. Inclusion and accessibility for the entire department, 8
including recreation programs, has been added to that oversight. She noted a goal to 9
improve the ability to communicate and serve residents who need special attention to 10
accessibility and to provide programs and services that are inclusive of everyone in the 11
community. The recruitment for the Assistant Director of Open Space, Parks, and Golf 12
will begin in January through an external executive recruiting firm. There is an event on 13
Monday, January 15, partnering with Youth Community Services, Jewish Community 14
Center, and East Palo Alto to offer a Martin Luther King, Jr., Day of Service. Regarding 15
project updates, the skatepark parking analysis is complete and submitted to the Planning 16
Department; there is a community meeting scheduled for January 17 on the 17
Recreation/Wellness Center; the baseball field at Hoover Park is scheduled to reopen 18
February 3; and the annual sports fields renovations at Cubberley and Baylands Athletic 19
Field are in progress, with both to reopen early in the year. She provided updates on 20
several capital improvement projects: El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Replacement 21
Project, Mitchell Park Dog Park Project, and Mitchell Park Net Climber net replacement. 22
Commissioner Cribbs asked if community funding went into the Little League project. 23
She also questioned if there was an opportunity for the new staff member in the Arts 24
Center to fold in the gender study. 25
Lam Do, Superintendant of Parks, Open Space, and Golf, believed it was volunteer 26
hours. 27
Director O'Kane felt this was a great opportunity for the gender study and would talk 28
about whether it was the right fit for the new assistant director or for someone else. 29
Commissioner Freeman commented that Mark Ribeiro did a very good job of 30
summarizing the Palo Alto Little League project and had gotten positive feedback about 31
that. 32
Chair Greenfield asked whether the increase of the dirt area was to increase the base path 33
length. 34
1
Packet Pg. 5
DRAFT
DRAFT 3
1
Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager, explained that it was to extend the 2
base path by 5 feet to allow an older age group as a step before going to a full-size field. 3
Commissioner Oche was excited about the MLK Day Celebration. She asked how 4
residents can find the link to that event on the JCC website. Regarding the skatepark 5
parking analysis, she questioned how long it typically takes for an analysis review and 6
what is next after that. 7
Mr. Howard responded that the MLK link will eventually be on the City's website and on 8
the YCS and JCC websites. 9
Mr. Do explained that Staff has not yet been able to dive deeply into the initial analysis 10
and anticipated working on it early this year and reporting back next month. 11
Commissioner Cribbs questioned the role of the Skatepark Ad Hoc group going forward. 12
Mr. Do explained that there are multiple perspectives. It is not a Capital Improvement 13
Project and is still in the development phases, so continued input from the ad hoc was 14
welcome. 15
Commissioner Cribbs believed the Friends of the Parks were waiting for the skatepark 16
traffic analysis before the Department gave the go-ahead to start raising money. 17
Mr. Do would get back with more about that. He noted that it was not just Community 18
Services but also Public Works and Transportation that needed to dive into that analysis, 19
so he was not able to give a definitive green light update. 20
Chair Greenfield encouraged prioritizing the skatepark and keeping the process moving. 21
He also welcomed Director O'Kane back to the Commission as a liaison. 22
23
BUSINESS 24
4. Aquatics Annual Report – Tim Sheeper – Discussion – (45 min) 25
Tim Sheeper of Team Sheeper, the provider of aquatic services at Rinconada Pool, 26
provided six profiles of community members who use the pool, from the data collected 27
daily and the data from the annual surveys. He summarized the preferences, interests, 28
and uses of general pool users, lap swimmers, open/recreational swimmers, summer 29
campers, swim lesson participants, and master swimmers. 30
1
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFT
DRAFT 4
Commissioner Oche was curious how the feedback was collected and how it is 1
addressed. 2
Mr. Sheeper explained there is an annual survey sent out near the end of the year to 3
about 2500 participants who used the facility. The lap swimmers have formed a Friends 4
of Rinconada group to meet with Staff a few times per year and provide feedback. There 5
is a good understanding of what the community needs. He was optimistic about being 6
able to expand the number of hours for swim lessons and open swim this year. 7
Commissioner Oche asked if there was a long waitlist for swim school in the summer 8
and the ways to fill that gap. 9
Mr. Sheeper responded that the hope was to provide swim lessons from spring through 10
fall and potentially year round. That path had changed with the pandemic and is now 11
back on track. 12
Commissioner Cribbs asked if there is trouble attracting staff. She questioned who has 13
the pool in the early and late evening. 14
Mr. Sheeper was pleased with the staff model. He noted that the youth swim team starts 15
using the pool at 4:00 and have been finishing at 8:00. In 2024, the hours will be 16
changing and swim lessons will be held in some of those lanes in the afternoon starting 17
at 4:00. 18
Commissioner Cribbs felt it was important for everybody to learn how to swim. She had 19
a question about older lap swimmers who have trouble getting out of the pool. She 20
asked if going across lanes to the ladders was the best way to exit in that case. 21
Mr. Sheeper stated Rinconada is one of easiest pools to get out of because the water is at 22
the deck level. He agreed with going across lanes to the ladders, much like crossing the 23
street. 24
Commissioner Freeman asked if the number of people surveyed was limited. He 25
questioned whether there was a need to reach out to partner with other communities or 26
private clubs for additional pool space. 27
Mr. Sheeper responded that the survey is sent to anybody who has an account or used the 28
facility in that year. People who come in for drop-in do not set up an account, so their 29
contact information is not available. He also stated that whatever pool space is available 30
in the community will be used. The demand is higher than the supply, especially in the 31
heart of Palo Alto. 32
Vice Chair Brown asked if there were any anecdotal trends not included in the report that 33
Mr. Sheeper wanted to share beyond the quantitative numbers. She also noted there was 34
1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFT
DRAFT 5
not a Water Babies class offered at Rinconada currently but hoped there would be space 1
for that in the future. 2
Mr. Sheeper described that a therapy exercise pool was something Rinconada has not 3
provided. The pool at Rinconada is more of a competition type of pool with the water 4
kept at 80 degrees. In an instructional/therapeutic pool, the person is not moving as 5
much and needs a warmer temperature in the range of 86 to 90 degrees to be 6
comfortable. The other gap is family locker rooms, especially during the warm months. 7
He noted that with more space, Water Babies would be on the schedule for Spring. 8
Chair Greenfield asked where swim lessons would be offered in 2024 besides 9
Rinconada. He questioned other pools in the community being used for swim lessons as 10
it has been a benefit to the community to have lessons offered at JLS or Gunn, for 11
example. 12
Mr. Sheeper explained that the focus is to make Rinconada a robust site for swim 13
lessons. He stated that bringing on another site required new staff and new leadership, 14
and he preferred to focus on doing the best possible job at Rinconada. 15
Chair Greenfield asked if it was a priority from a staff perspective to expand the location 16
of lessons. 17
Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director, did not have information about 18
community input on expanding lessons to other pools and also did not know what the 19
school district had at those pools in the summer. 20
Commissioner Cribbs felt some of the discussion related to the Master Plan and how to 21
work together with the school district to maximize existing resources. She thought it 22
would be great to look at the current available pool time and see how to maximize that. 23
Chair Greenfield asked if any members of the public wished to speak, and there were 24
none. He believed there was a community need for pool access in South Palo Alto. He 25
was interested in getting an understanding of availability from the school district and 26
expanding the footprint of offerings for the following year. He noted the survey 27
response rate was 8%. He wondered if there was value in trying to get a greater 28
response. He commented on the input looking for more swimming opportunities later in 29
the day and questioned if that was the 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. window and whether there was 30
demand to keep pool open later. 31
Mr. Sheeper agreed that more survey response would be helpful. The people requesting 32
later hours were mainly lap swimmers and master swimmers looking for after-work 33
hours, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. The pool closes at 8:00 p.m. He felt there would be a small 34
demand to keep it open later but stated it was not prime time. 35
1
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFT
DRAFT 6
Commissioner Freeman questioned if people are happy with the current fees being 1
charged. 2
Mr. Sheeper stated the survey was helpful to see that around 75% of people who were 3
satisfied or highly satisfied with that. When researching how prices compare to others in 4
the municipal space, he felt it was competitive. 5
Director O'Kane noted there is a CIP for a family changing room and would follow up on 6
the status on that. 7
Commissioner Cribbs stated the family changing room has been on the list for a long 8
time as a request and somehow keeps getting pushed down. She hoped it would come to 9
the top soon. 10
5. Parks and Recreation / PAUSD Partnership – Adam Howard – Discussion – (50 11
min) 12
Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager, stated this discussion was in 13
connection with the Master Plan goal to enhance partnerships and collaborations with 14
Palo Alto Unified School District to support access and joint use of facilities. He gave 15
an overview of the Middle School Athletics Program, including locations, sports, and 16
history of the program. He reviewed the responsibilities of both the PAUSD and the 17
City in this partnership. The participation in this program is around 1000-1300 18
registrations yearly with 299 current waitlists. The expenditures are around $530,000 19
and revenue $400,000. This program is very popular, and the space available at all three 20
schools is crucial as the City does not have enough facilities to operate on its own. The 21
other standing partnership is the Field Maintenance and Use Partnership, which provides 22
access to fields on elementary and middle school sites and tennis courts on high school 23
sites in exchange for the City providing maintenance to those spaces. The maintenance 24
costs are about $1M, evenly split with PAUSD. There is a 60/40 split between the City 25
and PAUSD on any revenue from permits, roughly $30,000 to PAUSD. Both of these 26
partnerships are very important to the community. 27
Commissioner Freeman asked what was involved in the field maintenance costs. 28
Regarding the City paying for equipment, he questioned if the City would be responsible 29
in the event of needing to add lighting to a court. 30
Mr. Howard responded that the vast majority of costs are for the seven staff members 31
who maintain the fields. He explained that the responsibility for the City to provide 32
equipment was more athletic equipment, such as basketballs, racquets, and jerseys. The 33
larger-scale projects would likely fall under field maintenance where there is a 50/50 34
split. 35
1
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFT
DRAFT 7
Vice Chair Brown asked about the challenges that have occurred with these programs, 1
where one party's request was not able to be accommodated. 2
Mr. Howard felt there were no real sticking points or conflicts. He noted the MSA has 3
the ability to rent the space after the City use finishes in the evening, most likely to 4
community groups. 5
Commissioner Cribbs asked how the insurance works for the MSA Program. She 6
questioned where the coaches come from. In terms of equipment, she asked if the kids 7
get to keep their jerseys or must give them back. She questioned whether there was a 8
need for contributions from the community in terms of kids who cannot afford to play. 9
She wanted to know why pickleball was less expensive than the other sports offered. 10
She noted the registration numbers with around 100 less girls than boys and questioned 11
the reason. She asked if the field maintenance was done by City Staff or a third party. 12
Mr. Howard explained that the MSA Program is covered under the City's insurance. 13
Coaches come from wherever they can be found: high school students, parent volunteers, 14
everywhere. He noted that any equipment used for MSA gets returned, but there is a lot 15
of wear and tear, and things will need to be replaced frequently. He felt equipment 16
might be a gap for struggling families as the fee reduction does not cover that. As this is 17
the first time trying pickleball, the cost is lower to ensure participation. It is also not part 18
of a league and has no refereeing or scheduling with other schools. He felt the gender 19
gap in registration was due to co-ed flag football having only four girls participating. 20
The numbers are much more even in other sports. He responded that the maintenance 21
staff for the school fields were full-time in-house employees. 22
Commissioner Oche questioned the ratio of fee reduction applicants to the total and what 23
the criteria is to choose the fee reduction applicants. She suggested possibly allocating a 24
set amount of money to set a goal of how many people to help. She asked if it was 25
possible to track the waitlist data more specifically, between those not in any program 26
and those already in another program. She questioned how the decision to add co-ed 27
pickleball and Frisbee was made, if was feedback from the community. 28
Mr. Howard answered that anyone can register if they have fee reduction or not. The fee 29
reduction registrations are less than 1% of the total. He stated that waitlist data would 30
have to be done manually but felt the number was probably on the smaller side for 31
anyone on a waitlist and playing in a sport. The waitlist is an issue, and all the demand 32
cannot be met, even if there were enough coaches. Finding coaches is the biggest 33
restraint right now. He explained that new sports are added based on the popularity of 34
things happening in the community and feedback from community members. 35
1
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFT
DRAFT 8
Chair Greenfield wanted to know more about the process of signing up for Middle 1
School Athletics. He also asked which sports are co-ed and whether the Middle School 2
Sports activities were publicized to the community in the Enjoy catalogue. 3
Mr. Howard responded that registration is first-come first-served basis. Each school and 4
sport has a day. Registration opens at 8:30 a.m. Some sports fill quickly, and 5
registration is almost always online. Teams are not skill based, and all registered players 6
participate. There was discussion about potentially changing the registration process. 7
He explained there is girls' and boys' volleyball and basketball, and the remainder are co-8
ed: flag football, cross country, pickleball, tennis, wrestling, track and field, and ultimate 9
Frisbee. The activities are in the Enjoy catalogue. 10
Chair Greenfield noted that the prioritization focus on Palo Alto residents is based on 11
City policy and this Commission periodically reviews that policy. 12
Commissioner Cribbs asked if a student could play more than one sport per quarter. She 13
questioned if this was just for students who attend Palo Alto Middle Schools. 14
Mr. Howard responded that a student can only play one sport in a season. He stated the 15
participants are 99% students from these schools but homeschool and private school 16
students can participate as well. He also explained that they try to stay away from 17
offering sports that are more heavily done in the community, like soccer, and want to 18
offer something that is not skill based. 19
Commissioner Cribbs suggested sharing this with the City-School Liaison Committee. 20
Commissioner Freeman asked if the waitlist of 299 was about average and whether the 21
same people tend to end up on the list. He felt the lottery system would probably be a 22
better system. He questioned how an applicant knows they qualify for the fee reduction. 23
Mr. Howard believed the numbers were a little higher than usual as finding coaches has 24
been more difficult this year. He noted that all sports fill quickly. Girls' volleyball is 25
one of the most popular and fastest filled. He stated that students who qualify for the 26
free and reduced lunch at PAUSD also qualify for the fee reduction. 27
Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director, added that there is a dollar amount cap 28
on the fee reduction per year, and that is being increased so people do not meet the cap as 29
quickly. 30
Mr. Howard stated the cap right now is $300 and it was unclear if people needed to hold 31
that for summer camps. Staff wanted to adapt the program so people do not have to 32
make that choice. That is built into the General Fund, but in the past, the Palo Alto Rec 33
Foundation has helped offset the cost to the City for providing that support. 34
1
Packet Pg. 11
DRAFT
DRAFT 9
6. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Update – Lam Do – Discussion – (60 min) 1
Lam Do, Superintendant of Parks, Open Space, and Golf, presented the CIP projects 2
proposed for the upcoming five-year cycle for discussion about prioritization and 3
assessment for any missing projects that should be considered. He listed the CIP criteria 4
and the prioritization of projects and funding levels. He displayed an example project, 5
including funding and expenditure schedules. He also showed a chart of FY 2024-2028 6
projects and the current budget estimate. The FY 2025 preliminary proposed CIP 7
projects were discussed. For the most part, they are projects that had been identified 8
previously in the prior five-year cycle that will be updated. Over the 5-year cycle, there 9
are about 35 proposed projects, and he presented a chart showing which fiscal year each 10
project was slated for. There are also six projects that are annually proposed, mostly 11
repair and maintenance rather than a specific scope or comprehensive plan. Several CIP 12
needs were identified that are not currently in the five-year CIP plan because of a larger 13
design scope, need for community outreach, or need to identify a funding source. He 14
finally reviewed the CIP process timeline, ending with plans for City Council to review 15
and adopt the capital plan and budget in June. 16
Vice Chair Brown suggested narrowing the scope of the conversation to be more 17
realistic, giving feedback on the projects presented, prioritizing whether they are in the 18
correct year, and identifying gaps and missing projects, with the understanding that those 19
large projects will take staff capacity and bump other things down the timeline. She 20
liked the order and prioritization and wanted to err on the side of keeping Year 1 realistic 21
so those things can come to fruition. 22
Commissioner Freeman asked the funding rolls over to the next year if a project is not 23
completed in the first year. 24
Mr. Do explained the factors that may delay a project. If a project is unable to be 25
completed in a fiscal year for any reason, Staff has the option to work with the Office of 26
Management and Budget to go through a reappropriation process. He gave some 27
examples of reasons why that may happen. 28
Chair Greenfield noted there was overall good success of things moving forward without 29
major changes but that a lot depends on the general budget status of the City. He asked 30
if Mr. Do had any comments on the overall city budget projections at this time. 31
Mr. Do responded that it has been reported in the press that the City is in good health, 32
but that does not necessarily mean it will funnel into CIP projects. Staff is operating 33
based on the needs, independent of the City's financial status. 34
1
Packet Pg. 12
DRAFT
DRAFT 10
Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director, added that the Finance Committee was 1
presented with the long-range financial forecast on December 5 and that presentation and 2
staff report would give insight into how the City views finances. 3
Commissioner Freeman asked if there was alignment between approved projects and the 4
resources to manage those projects. 5
Mr. Do answered that Staff resource has been an ongoing issue, and of late, funds have 6
needed to be reappropriated and projects carried forward more. He agreed with looking 7
at what is realistic and what could be accomplished. 8
Commissioner Cribbs asked what criteria OMB used to approve or put aside projects. 9
She also questioned if she was reading the Preliminary Proposed CIP Projects chart 10
correctly in that there was money in FY 26 and 28 for dog park renovations. 11
Mr. Do explained that OMB was not reviewing projects for validity but balancing how 12
much the City can support financially. He also noted that the dog park renovation and 13
installation CIP is funded every other year dependent on the source of funding. 14
Chair Greenfield questioned the expenditures for art in public spaces over FY 23 and 24. 15
Mr. Do did not know the specific projects that was for. The art in public spaces program 16
provides public art throughout the city and is typically not within the scope of the 17
Division of Open Space, Parks, and Golf. 18
Director O'Kane added that projects like Fire Station 4 and the Public Safety Building 19
have or will have public art. This item is associated with any municipal project and any 20
private development that meets certain criteria. 21
Chair Greenfield asked for more information on the Foothills Dam Seepage project, 22
which has been rolled over. He stated that restroom implementation has been slow and 23
asked how that is reflected in the CIP budget. 24
Mr. Do answered that the dam has an ongoing seepage year-round, and this item is to 25
initiate finding the cause. He would get more information from Public Works on the 26
details. The park restroom funding has been rolled over and reappropriated to pool a 27
larger amount, and the restrooms coming online in this FY are at Ramos, Cubberley, and 28
Boulware. 29
Commissioner Cribbs asked why the Magic Bridge restroom was so far out when there is 30
a huge need there. 31
Mr. Do stated the design is being proposed in FY 25 and implementation in FY 26. 32
1
Packet Pg. 13
DRAFT
DRAFT 11
Chair Greenfield stated Foothills Buckeye Creek Maintenance had fallen off the five-1
year plan and asked if it was a matter of funding. 2
Mr. Do stated that was being addressed two-fold. The Foothills Nature Preserve 3
Improvements are being funded for FY 25, 27, and 28 and cover pedestrian pathways, 4
bridges, and the design and study of improvements specific to Buckeye Creek. That 5
long-term solution would also need a funding source. 6
7. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair Greenfield – Discussion – (15 7
min) 8
Chair Greenfield stated Hawthorns (MidPen) Area Planning had a public meeting on 9
Saturday and a site tour a few weeks earlier. That is progressing along. Staff is getting 10
ready to send an updated recommendation to City Council for review. The Master Plan 11
Ad Hoc looks forward to picking up again in the new year and had met to review the CIP 12
information. 13
Commissioner Freeman did not have any changes to report on Golf. Staff remains in 14
communication with the State Water Board and ecology consultants. There will 15
hopefully be more information about timeline at the next meeting. Golfers continue to 16
be reminded to stay out of the wetlands. 17
Commissioner Cribbs asked if there was an update on the First Tee agreement. 18
Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director, stated Staff was working through a 19
different agreement related to fees and would focus on the long-term partnership once 20
that was resolved. 21
Commissioner Cribbs again mentioned the public meeting at Mitchell Park on January 22
17 and hoped there would be good attendance. There was continued discussion with 23
various people around Silicon Valley about potential grants but nothing to report in the 24
near future. 25
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 26
ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 27
28
Chair Greenfield listed items that would be followed up with Staff to finalize the January 29
agenda: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update, Golf, E-bikes, 30
Recreation/Wellness Center, Foothills Nature Preserve PIO, Recreation Program Review 31
Ad Hoc update. He wanted to look to have three items agendized for January. 32
33
Vice Chair Brown suggested an informal ad hoc report in January on the 34
Recreation/Wellness Center and having it agendized in February. 35
1
Packet Pg. 14
DRAFT
DRAFT 12
1
Commissioner Oche felt the Recreation Program Review Ad Hoc would have an update 2
in February. 3
4
Commissioner Freeman noted he had previously mentioned the possibility of having 5
someone from the JMC to provide a presentation on the challenges they are having and 6
whether the commission could help them in any way. 7
8
Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director, felt that would be an informational item. 9
There is a consultant putting together a plan to help guide operations into the future, and 10
when that is completed, there could be a report on the findings there, probably in March 11
or April. She asked if there is normally a retreat at the beginning of the calendar year. 12
13
Chair Greenfield responded that typically the retreat is following the reorganization of 14
the Commission. It was previously discussed that the reorganization meeting would be 15
in April and the retreat in early May. The May meeting is focused to the work plan. 16
17
ADJOURNMENT 18
19
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. 20
1
Packet Pg. 15
Parks and Recreation Commission
Staff Report
From: Daren Anderson, Assistant Director Community services
Meeting Date: January 23, 2024
Report #: 2312-2458
TITLE
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: an active transportation plan--
Introduction & Overview, Community Engagement, Context & Baseline Conditions, and Next
Steps
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is providing this report as an overview to the Parks and Recreation Commission on the
recently launched effort to update the City’s existing 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (BPTP). The City’s existing BPTP is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document
that supports efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of walking, biking, and rolling as a
means of transportation and recreation. The objectives of the BPTP Update are to seek robust
community feedback; reevaluate implementation progress from previous plans to adjust
recommendations for new policies, facilities, and programs; and to determine appropriate
criteria and metrics to prioritize recommendations and network routes. The BPTP Update effort
will also further investigate safety data to propose impactful recommendations, explore the role
of emerging transportation technologies such as electric-bicycles and micro-mobility devices, and
establish big-picture planning to expand bicycling and walking for all user types in support of the
City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, a Safe System approach,
and other planning documents and policies. The Plan Update effort will be an 18–24-month
process, with the Plan Update adoption anticipated for Summer 2025.
BACKGROUND
At the May 17, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting the City’s grant
application for the State Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Funds for the BPTP
Update project, and in September 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
approved of the allocation of Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds to the City
of Palo Alto in the amount of $334,852 for the purposes of updating the 2012 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. At the June 19, 2023 meeting, the City Council approved a
professional services contract with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. with subconsultants Mobycon, to
prepare this BPTP Update.
4
Packet Pg. 16
ANALYSIS
The existing conditions and needs analysis is underway. The following section presents a brief
discussion of each of the topics covered in this task.
Network Mapping and Facilities Inventory. Available data has been compiled and the GIS-based
infrastructure inventory has been updated to reflect the existing pedestrian and bicycle network.
Demographic Analysis. The City of Palo Alto has a population of 68,680 according to the American
Community Survey (ACS) 2021 5-year estimates. The working age population cohort (ages 20 to
64) represents the largest population segment in the City at 57% of the total population. Palo
Alto residents are highly educated, with the majority (98%) of people aged 25 years or older
having at least a high school graduate degree. 53% of the population is White, 7% of the
population identify as Hispanic or Latino, and 35% Asian.; Chinese, Asian Indian, and Korean
constitute the major Asian ethnic groups in the City. Approximately 61% of the population
exclusively speaks English at home. Asian and Pacific Island languages make up about 22% of the
population, with around 32% of this group not speaking English proficiently. Other Indo-
European languages account for 11%, of which roughly 14% do not speak English very well. There
are no Equity Priority Communities or Disadvantaged Communities within the City of Palo Alto
but there are Equity Priority Communities in Stanford University and East Palo Alto.
Program and Policy Inventory. Over twenty relevant planning documents and programs were
reviewed to develop an enhanced understanding of the policy and planning environment for
walking and biking in Palo Alto. This work also supports the creation of an updated inventory of
existing programs and policies relevant to biking and walking and identifies gaps or needs that
could be addressed by the Plan.
Bicycle Friendly Community Assessment. Since 2003, the League of American Bicyclists’ (LAB)
Bike-Friendly America program has been evaluating states, communities, businesses, and
universities with the aim of rewarding excellence and raising standards and expectations for what
constitutes a bicycle-friendly environment. As of 2023, Palo Alto was designated as a Gold-level
cycling community. It has been listed as a Bicycle-Friendly Community since 2003 and has been a
Gold-level community since 2010.
The 2023 application increases the emphasis on addressing gaps in the low-stress network with
the most recent report card indicating that neighborhood streets are underutilized in Palo Alto,
which could easily become low-stress linkages in the cycling network for a relatively low cost.
If the City decides to pursue progressing to a “Platinum” level to assist reaching S/CAP goals,
specific opportunities identified for the City of Palo Alto are as follows (based on the 2021 Report
Card and the 2023 application criteria):
4
Packet Pg. 17
•Increasing the overall mileage of bicycle network with a specific focus on addressing gaps
in the low stress cycling network.
•Increase high-quality cycle parking, especially near major activity centers and transit.
•Expand cycling education efforts to reach adults, especially women, seniors,
underrepresented groups, and English learning communities (noting the large Chinese
and Hispanic groups present). Further, the LAB suggests that Palo Alto could offer bicycle
friendly training to motorists, particularly commercial drivers and fleet operators (such as
delivery drivers).
•Creating a bicycle-friendly environment through laws & ordinances.
It is considered that working towards the above suggestions could increase cycling mode share
from a modest 9% closer to the Platinum-level average of nearly 14% in the City. This would have
the added benefit of reducing crash and fatality rates by increasing overall road safety which
would also work towards a Platinum-level community designation. The Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan can also help to identify opportunities to achieve the items that were
identified as opportunities to improve.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is a rating given to a road
segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it imposes on bicyclists. Levels of traffic stress
range from 1 to 4 with LTS 1 indicating low stress facility and LTS 4 indicating a high stress facility.
The segment analysis considers roadway functional classification, vehicle volume, posted or
prevailing vehicle speeds, number of vehicle lanes, the presence of on-street parking, and vehicle
parking and bicycle lane widths. The crossing analysis considers the right-turn lane configuration
and length, bike lane approach, vehicle turning speeds, and the presence of a median refuge. The
results of the LTS analysis will inform the locations and types of treatments and facilities needed
to create a low-stress all ages and abilities bicycle network.
Pedestrian Barriers. The analysis of pedestrian barriers will examine linear barriers (such as
freeways, water bodies, and rail lines) and barriers near transit (including gaps in sidewalks, curb
ramps, signals, or disconnected cul-de-sacs) that force people to take detours and increase the
and types of treatments and facilities needed to create direct connections and reduce the length
of walking trips.
Safety and Collisions. A detailed spatial analysis of the five most recent years of reported collision
data involving bicyclists and pedestrians will be conducted to identify pedestrian and bicycle high
injury networks (HINs). Additionally, available variables in the collision data will be analyzed to
identify patterns or trends based on temporal characteristics, lighting conditions, location
characteristics (intersection versus segment), primary collision factors, age, and gender. These
collision profiles will provide a better understanding of the common risks, and where and how
efforts should be focused to most effectively make streets safer for people walking and biking.
4
Packet Pg. 18
The safety analysis also includes a high-level review of the ten most recent years of reported
collision data involving bicyclists and pedestrians has been conducted to understand how the
number and severity of pedestrian and bicycle involved collisions are changing over time. The
following charts illustrate a general decrease in the total number of pedestrian and bicycle
involved collisions.
94 98
92
104
69
78
92
73
40 41
16
7 4 2 2 4 5 2 4 7 2 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Fatal and Severe Injury
Bicycle Collisions
4
Packet Pg. 19
Activity and Benefits. The analysis will utilize various data sources, including counts and location
based data, to estimate existing and future walking, biking, and rolling activity in the City and
forecast benefits of investments in the active transportation network.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The goals of the community engagement for the BPTP Update include:
•Communicate timely information to the public and agency partners throughout the Plan Update
•Actively seek feedback prior to key milestones during the development of Plan Update
•Provide meaningful opportunities for involvement
•Demonstrate how community input has influenced the Plan Update’s development
•Seek participation of potentially underserved and disadvantaged communities
•Ensure consistency with applicable state and federal laws and regulations, as well as local policies,
goals, and objectives
•Coordinate with ongoing community engagement efforts carried out through other plans and
programs such as the Safe Streets for All Plan and Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS)
Community engagement is divided into three phases: 1) Visioning; 2) Needs & Concerns; and 3)
Recommended Projects and Programs. The community engagement effort includes a
combination of digital outreach and in-person events.
•Project website and interactive map. The project website can be accessed at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/bikepedplan. The website recently included an interactive map
that allowed respondents to provide geographic input on key issues and opportunity locations for
33 33
37
22
31
25
40
30
10
19
6
1
4 3 1
4 3 3 5
2 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Fatal and Severe Injury
Pedestrian Collisions
4
Packet Pg. 20
walking, biking, and rolling in Palo Alto. The interactive map was open from early October through
December 31, 2024 and received a total of 956 individual comments. The comments used will
inform the BPTP Update vision, goals, and priorities, as well as identify areas of concern and
opportunities for upgrading the pedestrian and bicycle network and improving safety and comfort
for those walking and rolling in the city.
•Committee and Working Group Meetings. The project team will engage the following committees
and working groups at three key points over the course of the plan:
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
o City School Transportation Safety Committee
o Planning and Transportation Commission
o Parks and Recreation Commission
o Rail Committee
o City Council
o Interagency Staff Working Group
•Neighborhood and Focus Group Meetings. Four neighborhood meetings will be held during the
second phase of engagement. These meetings will be jointly organized by the consultant team
and community partners and will be distributed geographically throughout the city. Community
partners will provide a range of roles, including distributing materials, promoting events, hosting
events, providing translation and notetaking, facilitating focus groups, and reviewing material for
the inclusion in the Plan.
•Street Level Engagement: Four street level engagement events will be held at various locations,
to be selected with recommendations from City staff, working groups and committees. These
events will include tabling to introduce the project and seek input on community needs and
recommendations at key locations such as farmer’s markets, City fairs, community events, and
pop-ups during peak lunch, dinner, and drop-off/pick-up hours on site (e.g., downtown, California
Ave., middle and high schools).
o The project team tabled at the Bike Palo Alto event on Sunday, October 1, 2023 to
introduce the project and to receive input from the community on specific locations that
need improvement.
•Community Meetings. Two community meetings will be hosted and are planned to be hybrid,
offering both in person and virtual options for participation.
o Meeting #1: Visioning Workshop (January 31, 2024). The goal of the visioning workshop
will be to identify the direction of the Plan and set forth objectives and goals. The
outcomes from the visioning workshop will be revisited at the STAR Analysis workshop as
part of the multi-day in-person collaborative work sessions. Stakeholders will be invited
to this meeting.
o Meeting #2: System Development & Network Priorities (June 2024). The goal of the
second meeting is to refine project recommendations and gather feedback on
prioritization. Stakeholders will be invited to this meeting.
Multi-Day Collaborative Work Sessions. Mobycon staff will be curating and executing a multiday
collaborative work session at two points along the project. The first will occur in Spring 2024.
Activities conducted during this time will set the stage for the network evaluation and project
identification process to follow. The second session will occur in Fall 2024. Activities will focus on
4
Packet Pg. 21
solidifying network recommendations and developing a process to prioritize projects, programs,
and policies for implementation.
Phase 1 Community Engagement Themes
Phase 1 community engagement themes included an interactive map, public survey (developed
and distributed in partnership with the Safe Streets For All Action Plan team), a series of seven
committee and working group meetings, and an in person pop-up event at Bike Palo Alto. A
community meeting visioning workshop is scheduled for January 31, 2024. A high-level overview
of what we heard through these Phase 1 engagement activities is presented in this section.
•Interactive Map. A total of 956 unique comments were received between September 28 and
December 31, 2023. Commenters had the option to select four different comment categories,
including safety concern, infrastructure needed, destination you want to access, and other. Over
half of the comments (54%, or 516 comments) were categorized as a "Safety Concern", followed
by 29% (276) of comments categorized as "Infrastructure Needed", 14% (136) of comments were
categorized as “Other”, and the remaining 3% (28) of comments were categorized as “Destination
You Want to Access”. Participants were given the option to view and like comments from other
users. Notably, comments advocating for improved infrastructure to address connectivity gaps in
existing bicycle facilities, safety enhancements, wider bike lanes for increased rider comfort, and
the provision of bike infrastructure near schools garnered the highest number of likes. The project
team will be further reviewing the comments in the upcoming months.
•Committee and Working Group Meetings. The BPTP Update team engaged with several standing
committees and commissions and created a working group to guide the development of the work.
The Phase 1 working group and committee feedback covers a wide range of topics related to
safety, transportation infrastructure, across barrier connections, transformative technologies,
and future development. Key themes that emerged from these meetings include:
1. Safety is a top priority. People expressed concerns about pedestrian and bicyclist
safety at various locations, especially for students walking to and from school.
2. There is demand for high quality transportation infrastructure. Suggestions to support
more walking and biking included implementation of more bicycle boulevards with
traffic calming treatments on neighborhood streets, as well as additional secure and
long-term bicycle parking, and separated bike lanes on higher speed higher volume
roadways. There was general agreement that quality was more important than
quantity when it comes to transportation infrastructure for walking and biking.
3. Across barrier connections are needed. Committee and working group members
recognized the presence of major barriers, such as U.S. 101 and the Caltrain tracks,
and acknowledged the need for low-stress connections to overcome these barriers.
There was a sense of urgency around selecting a preferred location for grade-
separated crossing(s) of the Caltrain tracks.
4. Power and potential of transformative technologies. The presence of new travel
modes, including e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as the availability of new
technologies such as LiDar and vehicle to infrastructure sensors, has rapidly changed
the landscape of transportation planning and facility design. Committee and working
4
Packet Pg. 22
group members expressed an interest in considering and incorporating these
transformative technologies in the BPTP Update analysis and recommendations.
5. Plan for the future. There is substantial growth planned in Palo Alto, particularly
within select priority development areas. The BPTP Update must consider land use
changes and development patterns.
Bike Palo Alto event. The BPTP Update team participated in the Bike Palo Alto event, which was
held on October 1, 2023 from 1-3 p.m. at Fair Meadow Elementary School. The team received
comments from about 40 participants who expressed concerns related to walking and biking
safety, supported implementation of protected bike lanes, and identified El Camino Real as a
barrier to connectivity within the city.
NEXT STEPS
The City’s Office of Transportation will host a Visioning Workshop1 with stakeholders on January
31, 2024 to craft the Vision and Goals for the Plan Update effort. Additionally, the existing
conditions and needs analysis will be completed over the next few months and presented to
working groups, Commissions, and Committees for review and input as part of Phase 2
engagement, anticipated for Spring 2024. Following Commission/committee review and input,
the City Council will review the existing conditions and needs analysis in Spring/Summer 2024.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The BPTP Update project cost is $333,945, including a 10% contingency. The City is eligible to
cover project expenditures under MTC’s TDA Article 3 program and can request an allocation of
up to $334,852 for the effort. City staff anticipates that all eligible costs incurred will be
reimbursed through the TDA Article 3 payment reimbursement process. These funds are included
in the FY 2024 Adopted Budget in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation
Project (PL-04010).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map (Dated 01/05/2024)
Attachment B: Basemap
Attachment C: Bicycle Friendly Community Benchmarking Memo
Attachment D: Literature Review Summary
1 City Calendar Event Listing: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Events-Directory/Office-of-Transportation/BikePed-
Plan-Update-Community-Visioning-Workshop
4
Packet Pg. 23
101
280
82
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embarc
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Cal
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Colo
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mead
o
w
D
r
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
El D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Char
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
San Antonio Rd
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gre
e
r
R
d
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
Wil
k
i
e
W
y
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
y
Han
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hil
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipero Serra Blvd
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ros
s
R
d
Ma
t
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
Ma
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
Colo
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mill
e
r
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Alta Mesa
Memorial
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mata
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Barr
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
Class I - Shared Use Path
Class IIa - Bike Lane
Class IIb - Buffered Bike Lane
Class IIIa - Bike Route
Class IIIb - Bike Boulevard
Class IV - Separated Bikeway
Trail
Ped/Bike Bridge
Ped/Bike Underpass
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Existing Bicycle Facilities Map | 01/05/2024
4
Packet Pg. 24
101
280
82
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Lyt
t
o
n
A
v
e
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
d
Channing Ave
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
d
Cow
p
e
r
S
t
Embar
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Lou
i
s
R
d
Or
e
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
Pa
g
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Col
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Lom
a
V
e
r
d
e
A
v
e
Mea
d
o
w
D
r
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
Se
a
l
e
A
v
e
El
D
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Cha
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
y
Sa
n An
t
o
nio
R
d
Ba
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
d
Gre
e
r
R
d
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Lo
s
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
W
i
l
k
i
e
W
y
Ar
a
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
s
E
x
p
y
Ha
n
o
v
e
r
S
t
Hi
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
Junipe
ro
Ser
r
a
B
l
v
d
Sta
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
Ros
s
R
d
Ma
t
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
Ma
y
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
Ho
m
e
r
A
v
e
Col
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
EAST
PALO ALTOMENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
PALO ALTO
Byxbee Park
Mitchell
Park
Hoover
Park
Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve
Greer
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
Ramos
Park
Robles
Park
Bol
Park
Palo Alto
High
School
Gunn
High
School
JLS
Middle
School
Greene
Middle
School
Fletcher
Middle
School
Palo Alto
Caltrain
California Ave
Caltrain
San Antonio
Caltrain
Menlo Park
Caltrain Palo Alto
Airport
Mat
a
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
Bar
r
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
101
280
82
EAST
PALO ALTO
MENLO
PARK
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
LOS
ALTOS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LA HONDA
PALO ALTO
PORTOLA
VALLEY
City of Palo Alto
Park/Open Space
School/University
Commercial Center
Community Center
Library
Caltrain Stop
Railroad
Data Sources: City of Palo Alto, MTC
0 1 2
Miles
Basemap | 2023
4
Packet Pg. 25
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Technical Memorandum
BICYCLE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY
This memo provides a review of the criteria for a “Bicycle Friendly Community” as outlined by the League of
American Bicyclists and a comparison of the City of Palo Alto (the City) to Gold- and Platinum-rated peer
communities. We will also examine the detailed evaluation metrics to identify areas for improvement in
Palo Alto and provide suggestions to help Palo Alto improve from a Gold to Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly
Community.
The Importance of Walking & Wheeling
Walking (or moving by wheelchair or mobility device) is the most fundamental form of transportation
available. Regardless of what mode one chooses, there is a point at the beginning and end of their trip in
which they are a pedestrian. Additionally, walking or moving by wheelchair is the one form of
transportation available to everyone, regardless of age or ability to drive or ride a bike. Similar to walking,
wheeling (by any one of the various means from cycling or scootering to using a wheelchair or mobility
device) is, in theory, a widely accessible means of transportation and recreation. In comparison to owning
a vehicle or even purchasing a transit pass, using any of the various wheeling devices is a low-cost (and
sometimes no-cost) way to travel throughout one’s community.
Active modes of travel have a wide variety of benefits for individuals and society as a whole. Walking and
wheeling (when requiring human effort), provide users with exercise opportunities that can be incorporated
into their daily routine. Exercise has been found to improve both physical and mental health, improving
overall public health and wellbeing. This can have significant benefits to the health system and result in
economic benefits as well.
This can have significant benefits to public health with one study finding that a moderate increase in active
transport (40.5 to 53.4 minutes per person week) – in line with preferred transportation scenarios from the
five largest California transportation planning regions – could result in an annual reduction of 909 deaths
and 16,084 disability adjusted life years (DALYs) which is the sum of years of life lost due to premature
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
August 22, 2023 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy Arce
City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Mobycon
CC: Sylvia Star-Lack, City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
RE: Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update – Bicycle Friendly Community
4
Packet Pg. 26
August 22, 2023 Page 2
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Bicycle Friendly Community
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
mortality and years of living with disability. A significantly more ambitious scenario, increasing cycling to 283
mins per person per week could result in 8,543 fewer annual deaths and 194,003 fewer DALYs.1
In addition to public health improvements, active transportation provides economic benefits in a variety of
ways, from reductions in healthcare costs associated with a healthier population, to increased property
values, business revenue, and tourism. Such benefits have been observed across the country with
Northwest Arkansas seeing $137 million in economic benefits from investments in cycling2, Indianapolis
generating a $1.01 billion increase in property values adjacent to the Indianapolis Cultural Trail3, and the
Miami Valley in Ohio attracting $13 million worth of goods and services income annually associated with
the trails in the region4.
It is well-known that walking and wheeling by human-powered modes is also much more environmentally
friendly than travelling by motor vehicles, whether powered by fossil fuels or electric motors. Achieving
higher mode share of zero carbon emission (walking) and low carbon emission (cycling) modes can
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, linking back to public health
outcomes due to reduced pollution. Motor vehicles also produce a significant amount of environmental
microplastic pollution from tire wear, an issue that is of growing concern with larger, heavier vehicles that
wear down tires more quickly. This is especially pertinent with the growing number of large vehicles on
streets and roads (such as SUVs and pick-up trucks) as well as electric cars (which weigh more than internal
combustion vehicles). It is noted that bicycles (both pedal-powered and electric) produce emissions
through the logistics and assembly chain, as well as brake and tire particulate during use, however at
almost insignificant levels compared to motor vehicles.
Walking and wheeling are also economically more sustainable for communities as walking and wheeling
infrastructure tends to be cheaper to provide and maintain, as well as being more space efficient in
moving similar numbers of people as car infrastructure. In almost all cases, walking and wheeling are the
cheapest forms of transportation even when compared to transit.
Finally, providing well-planned and designed walking and cycling networks ensure residents and visitors
have mobility options to safely and comfortably travel within their community. Traditional auto-centric
planning and street design has created auto-dependent cities where using sustainable forms of
transportation can be uncomfortable and even dangerous. Without access to a car, people can be
excluded from opportunities to participate in society. This has manifested within Palo Alto through historical
zoning practices relegating non-residential uses to a concentrated location resulting in significant travel
distances for day-to-day errands. Providing diverse transportation networks allows people of all ages,
abilities, incomes, and ethnic backgrounds to choose what form of transportation is best suited to their
needs and desires, contributing to the creation of a more equitable community.
1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140516302419
2 https://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/about-us/newsroom/bicycling-provides-137-million-in-economic-benefits-to-northwest-arkansas
3 https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Active-Transportation-and-Real-Estate-The-Next-Frontier.pdf
4 https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Active-Transportation-and-Real-Estate-The-Next-Frontier.pdf
https://www.mvrpc.org/sites/default/files/2013trailsurveyreport.pdf
4
Packet Pg. 27
August 22, 2023 Page 3
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Bicycle Friendly Community
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Principles of Good Network Design
To create a truly sustainable transportation network, high quality facilities for all road users must be
provided. Five key principles are considered for network planning and design. By ensuring all five principles
are met within the network, a system of streets and spaces are created that improve access and
connectivity while encouraging people to walk and cycle for all kinds of trips, from the work commute to
daily errands and beyond, thus serving a wide variety of users.
◼ Cohesion – A cohesive active transportation network is one that allows users to get from A to B using
active modes, with key origins and destinations linked as a cohesive whole that can be easily
navigated by bike or on foot. Gaps in sidewalks or cycling facilities undermine cohesion as they
present barriers for users to overcome, forcing users into environments that are not suited to them,
such as a busy roadway.
◼ Directness – A direct trip by active means, or any mode for that matter, is one that can be
completed quickly and with minimal effort. Since walking and cycling are human-powered modes, it
is important that unnecessary detours are avoided. Such detours may require excessive time or
energy for the user, presenting a barrier to active modes. Routes that are short and quick for
pedestrians and cyclists result in walking and cycling trips that are competitive to other forms of
transportation, increasing the likelihood of their use.
◼ Safety – Safety is a key aspect in an active transportation network. Unsafe conditions, such as mixing
active users with vehicles on high speed and volume roadways is a major deterrent to a large
proportion of the population. A key aspect of creating a safe environment is minimizing differences in
speed and mass. In practice, this means providing dedicated spaces for pedestrians and cyclists in
the form of sidewalks and cycle tracks where traffic speeds and volumes are high. In some cases,
such as local streets where volumes are low, mixing users can be safe as long as the street is designed
to slow vehicles to 20 mph or less, a speed that is safe for vulnerable road users. When creating a safe
environment, perceived safety must also be taken into consideration. If an environment feels
threatening to active users, even if there is no real danger, that environment will be avoided when
possible.
◼ Comfort – Comfort is an often-overlooked aspect of designing an active transportation network.
Frequent stops at stop signs and red lights can negatively impact user comfort as this increases the
physical exertion required of cyclists when starting from a stop and can be irritating for pedestrians.
Other aspects that can negatively influence comfort include bumpy or uneven surfaces and
excessive noise from vehicles or other sources. Perceived safety, as mentioned above, can also be
linked to comfort as a feeling of being unsafe undermines feelings of comfort.
◼ Attractiveness – While attractiveness is a personal opinion, there are certain elements that have been
found to be widely considered as attractive along an active transportation route. Open spaces with
greenery, a well-maintained route, quiet streets, and an aesthetic built environment are generally
seen positively while traffic congestion, certain land uses (such as industry), and poorly lit routes are
considered unattractive and deter from the use of a route or network.
What Makes a Great Cycling Community?
Since 2003, the League of American Bicyclists’ (LAB) Bike-Friendly America program has been evaluating
states, communities, businesses, and universities with the aim of rewarding excellence and raising standards
and expectations for what constitutes a bicycle-friendly environment. As of May 2023, there were 506
Bicycle Friendly Communities, though nearly 900 have applied.
Communities hoping to be recognized as a Bicycle Friendly Community must complete an extensive
application process covering bicycling facilities, maintenance, last-mile connections, education, media
presence, data-collection, promotion, regulations, planning, staffing and other conditions. The LAB report
4
Packet Pg. 28
August 22, 2023 Page 4
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Bicycle Friendly Community
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
card uses information from the application as well as federally available data to make decisions regarding
awards.
The League of American Bicyclists has identified five elements5 essential to great cycling communities:
Equity & Accessibility, Engineering, Education, Encouragement and Evaluation & Planning.
• Equity refers to fostering a fair and inclusive planning process and cycling environment that seeks to
include all potential users, regardless of background, and re-balance historical inequities by proactively
reaching out to and providing extra support for marginalized groups. Accessibility means expanding
the traditional “cycling” umbrella to include a wider range of mobility options which can open mobility
opportunities to those with a range of disabilities.
• Engineering means designing, building, and maintaining safe and convenient places to cycle and park.
High-quality cycling environments are connected networks of trails, quiet streets, and protected cycle-
tracks. They also include a variety of convenient, secure cycle parking options.
• Education means providing a wide variety of opportunities for community members to acquire the skills
and confidence to ride – from bike classes in elementary schools to accessible courses for beginner
adult riders.
• Encouragement includes providing a range of incentives and opportunities to get and keep people
cycling – from Bike to Work programs to National Bike Month Activities and Open Streets events.
• Evaluation & Planning means planning for and evaluating the cycling system to measure current gaps
and challenges and plan for future improvements.
League of American Bicyclists – Bicycle Friendly Communities
The most recent publicly available report card for Palo Alto is from spring 2021. The Bicycle Friendly
Communities application has been offline for a significant update (discussed in more detail below) but still
focuses on the core Five E aspects.
As of 2023, Palo Alto was designated as a Gold-level cycling community. It has been listed as a Bicycle-
Friendly Community since 2003 and has been a Gold-level community since 2010. The following table
shows awards made to comparable peer communities6. Platinum-level communities include Davis, CA; Fort
Collins, CO; Boulder, CO and Madison, WI. Peer gold-level communities include Oakland, CA and Santa
Cruz, CA.
5 https://bikeleague.org/bfa/5-es/
6 https://bikeleague.org/bfa/award-database/#community
4
Packet Pg. 29
August 22, 2023 Page 5
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Bicycle Friendly Community
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Community Award (2023 spring) Population Land Use
Davis, CA Platinum 69,289 Suburban
Palo Alto, CA Gold 67,082 Suburban
Santa Cruz Gold 59,946 Suburban
Boulder, CO Platinum 108,090 Small town
Santa Monica, CA Gold 90,401 Urban
Fort Collins, CO Platinum 174,871 Urban core surrounded by low
density suburban areas
Madison, WI Platinum 258,054 Urbanized area
Benchmarks for Palo Alto
Applicants for the Bicycle Friendly Communities complete an extensive application7 in order to be
evaluated on a series of metrics. Palo Alto submitted an application and was evaluated in spring 2021 by
the League of American Bicyclists on these measures relative to the average platinum-level community, as
shown in the following table.
Average Platinum Palo Alto Comparison
High Speed Roads
with Bike Facilities
36% 80% Exceeds average for
Platinum communities
Bicycle Education
in Schools
GOOD VERY GOOD Exceeds average for
Platinum communities
Share of
Transportation
Budget Spent on
Bicycling
14% 76% Exceeds average for
Platinum communities
Bike Month and
Bike to Work Events
VERY GOOD VERY GOOD Meets average for Platinum
communities
7 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/Guide_to_the_Bicycle_Friendly_Community_Report_Card.pdf
4
Packet Pg. 30
August 22, 2023 Page 6
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Bicycle Friendly Community
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Presence of Active
Bicycle Advocacy
Group;
YES YES Meets average for Platinum
communities
Active Bicycle
Advisory
Committee
MEETS AT LEAST
MONTHLY
MEETS AT LEAST
MONTHLY
Meets average for Platinum
communities
Bike Plan is Current
and is Being
Implemented
YES YES Average
Total Bicycle
Network Mileage to
Total Road Network
Mileage
80% 33% Below average for Platinum
communities
Bicycle–Friendly
Laws & Ordinances
VERY GOOD ACCEPTABLE Below average for Platinum
communities
Bike Program Staff
to Population
1 per 21k 1 per 26.8k Below average for Platinum
communities
Cycling Ridership 13.6% 9.19% Below average for Platinum
communities
Crashes per 10k
bicycle commuters
100 281.05 Below average for Platinum
communities
Fatalities per 10k
bicycle commuters
0.4 0.69 Below average for Platinum
communities
Palo Alto scores well on the percentage of high-speed roads with bike facilities, bicycle education in
schools, and share of transportation budget spent on cycling. However, Palo Alto has a much higher rate
of crashes and a lower cycling mode-share than the average Platinum community.
The League of American Bicyclists provides numerous resources8 to communities aspiring to become
Bicycle Friendly Communities or improve their awards. The site includes resources to improve on the Five E’s
but also guidance on conducting a bicycle parking inventory, organizing bicycle events, and forming a
bicycle advisory committee.
8 https://bikeleague.org/bfa/community/resources/
4
Packet Pg. 31
August 22, 2023 Page 7
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Bicycle Friendly Community
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Opportunities for Improvement and 2023 Application Year
Last year, the League of American Bicyclists announced a change in their awards process9. The biggest
change is the addition of the Equity and Accessibility section as part of the Five E’s but the new process
also puts emphasis on other criteria. A review of the 2023 application for Bicycle Friendly Communities
includes the following additions:
◼ Understanding community socioeconomic and demographic information including:
o median age of the community
o languages other than English spoken at home
o foreign born population
o median household income
o poverty rate
o bicycle commute by sex
o percent of household without vehicles
o disability characteristics
o racial and ethnicity distribution
◼ Defining the bicycle network for on-road and off-road cycling facilities and adoption of a Safe
System approach to the delivery of the bicycle network.
◼ Updating bicycle infrastructure to make it more accessible for all ages and abilities, including people
with physical and/or cognitive disabilities.
◼ Network maintenance and use of mechanisms (e.g., 311) for cyclists to identify issues, problems and
hazards on the network as well as funding mechanisms for ongoing maintenance.
◼ Providing bicycle access to transit
◼ Regional coordination of bicycle facilities to ensure network connectivity and cohesion across
municipal boundaries.
The 2023 application increases the emphasis on addressing gaps in the low-stress network with the most
recent report card indicating that quiet streets are underutilized in Palo Alto, which could easily become
low-stress linkages in the cycling network for a relatively low cost.
Specific opportunities identified for the City of Palo Alto to progress up to “Platinum” level community are
as follows (based on the 2021 Report Card and the 2023 application criteria):
◼ Increasing the overall mileage of bicycle network with a specific focus on addressing gaps in the low
stress cycling network, especially on quiet neighborhood streets where traffic calming can create
safe cycling spaces for a relatively low cost. The 2023 application has been adjusted to place a
heavier emphasis on building a cohesive low-stress network rather than disjointed pieces of
infrastructure, reflecting the Safe Systems Approach10.
◼ Increase high-quality cycle parking, especially near major activity centers and transit.
◼ Expand cycling education efforts to reach adults, especially women, seniors, under-represented
groups, and non-English-speaking communities (noting the large Chinese and Hispanic groups
present). Further, the LAB suggests that Palo Alto could offer bicycle-friendly training to motorists,
particularly commercial drivers and fleet operators (such as delivery drivers).
◼ Creating a bicycle-friendly environment through laws & ordinances:
o The BFC application asks about the following Bike-Friendly policies:
▪ Banning parking in bike lanes and harassing cyclists
9 https://bikeleague.org/change-coming-bicycle-friendly-community-awards/
10 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf
4
Packet Pg. 32
August 22, 2023 Page 8
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
▪ Banning cell phone use while driving and harassing cyclists (now enacted
statewide)
▪ Penalties for failing to yield to a cyclist when turning, 'dooring' cyclists
▪ Vulnerable road user and safe passing distance laws
▪ A law that allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign (i.e. whether the “Idaho
Stop” is legal in your state), a law that allows cyclists to treat an unresponsive red
light as a stop sign (i.e. “Dead Red” law) and a law that allows bicyclists to follow
pedestrian signals instead of motor vehicle traffic lights at signalized intersections
◼ The BFC application also asks communities about bike-unfriendly policies and ordinances. The City
seems to require cyclists to use bike lanes, where available. The City also prohibits riding on sidewalks
in the central business district and bans “trick riding”. The following are other bike-unfriendly policies
the BFC application asks about:
o Where Cyclists Can/Must Ride: Local law requires bicyclists to use side paths and/or bike
lanes regardless of their usability, laws requiring cyclists to ride as far to the right of the road
as practicable without exceptions, restrictions on sidewalk riding inside and/or outside of
the Central Business District, dismount zones/regulations on shared-use paths and the
banning of cycles from non-highway roads that are open to vehicles.
o What/How Cyclists Can Ride: Local law restricts usage of electric-assist bicycles,
mandatory bike registration and/or helmet use for all ages and bans on exhibition or “trick
riding” (e.g. wheelies).
o Who Can Ride: Local or school policies restrict youths from riding to school, “Bicycle safety
checks” or other legal or de facto enforcement stops occur.
It is considered that working towards the above suggestions by building a more extensive/robust cycling
network, increasing the amount of high-quality cycle parking and access to transit, expanding education
efforts across different demographic groups and improving cycle-friendly ordinances through policies
could increase cycling mode share from a modest 9 per cent closer to the Platinum-level average of
nearly 14 per cent. This would have the added benefit of reducing crash and fatality rates by increasing
overall road safety which would also work towards a Platinum-level community designation.
4
Packet Pg. 33
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Technical Memorandum
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update will examine the existing bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure, guide investments in active transportation and recommend policies and practices
to build a safer and better pedestrian and bicycle network in the City of Palo Alto. The purpose of this
memorandum is to provide a synthesis and summary of existing plans, programs, and polices from recent
documents. This will help develop an understanding of the policy and planning environment for walking and
biking in Palo Alto.
Documents List
The following table lists the relevant documents and programs that were reviewed, summarized, and
synthesized for this task.
Table 1. List of Documents Reviewed
No. Document Name
Year of
Adoption
1. City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012
2. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2017
3. City of Palo Alto Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2023
4. City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan
2017
5. City of Palo Alto Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan 2019
6. City of Palo Alto Public Art Master Plan 2016
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
October 24, 2023 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy Arce
City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
RE: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Literature Review (Task 2.2)
4
Packet Pg. 34
Page 2 October 24, 2023
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Literature Review (Task 2.2) Literature Review
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
7. City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School (SRTS) 2021
8. Palo Alto SRTS Five-Year Work Plan, Safe Routes to School
Partnership Consensus Statement
2021
9. Adopted Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Safe Routes
to School Policies
2021
10. Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan 2018
11. The County of Santa Clara Stanford University Community Plan 20221
12. 2050 Plan Bay Area 2021
13. VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines 2022
14. VTA Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 2014
15. Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional
Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Update
2009
16. Central Bikeway Feasibility Study Alternatives Analysis 2022
(Peninsula Bikeway Study)
2022
17. VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines 2012
18. Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan 2018
19. Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan 2021
20. Caltrans Bay Area Bike Highway Study 2022
21. Palo Alto’s Local Road Safety Plan by VTA 2022
1 Track changes version available -
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ef397ab7a79e315cd9066ae/t/648a1d95f21c5553baf74820/1686773154192/SCP
+Draft+Board+of+Supervisors+12.13.22+Tracked+Changes.pdf
4
Packet Pg. 35
Page 3 October 24, 2023
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Literature Review (Task 2.2) Literature Review
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Topics and Key Themes
The following relevant topics were reviewed and summarized for each document and overall themes within
each topic and across all reviewed documents are synthesized in this section.
◼Vision and goal statements
◼Existing policies and programs related to active transportation
◼Established needs, issues, and concerns raised in the study
◼Current/planned projects coming from the study
◼Community feedback captured in the document
◼Community partners/contact information if available
◼Data documentation to incorporate
The complete summary for each document is provided as an attachment to this document. Key themes
from this review are presented in this section.
Vision and Goals
There is strong alignment among the vision and goals established in the documents reviewed, particularly
surrounding sustainability and climate action. For example, the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan support the goals identified in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and reflect
specific targets mentioned in the 2007 Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan.
Common themes around vision and goals from the review of these plans include :
◼Increasing biking and walking trips for all purposes
◼Constructing and maintaining safe and accessible streets for walking and biking to all modes and
people of all ages and abilities
◼Developing a network of bikeways, pathways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects various
business districts, residentials areas, open spaces and parks
◼Improving the aesthetics of walkways and bike paths to attract more walking and biking trips
◼Reducing overall vehicle miles traveled
◼Seeking to improve the quality of life, as well as environmental quality, economic health and social
equity
Policies and Programs
Most of the policies and programs mentioned in each plan aim to promote the goals and vision of that
specific plan. They are also in line with the vision of similar plans that promote non-motorized transportation.
For example, the 2030 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan introduced programs and policies that focus on
collecting bicycle counts and conducting surveys to understand bicycle use (Program T1.16.1); encourag ing
participation in local walking and biking events (Program T1.16.4); providing facilities that encourage walking
and biking (policy T-1.19); prioritizing investments for enhanced pedestrian access and bicycle use within
Palo Alto (Program T1.19.2) etc. These policies and programs are in line with the goals and visions of the
Comprehensive Plan and are consistent with the 2021 City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan as
well.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area 2009
Update mentions programs and policies such as Bike-to-Work day, pedestrian and bicycle training, resolution
4
Packet Pg. 36
Page 4 October 24, 2023
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Literature Review (Task 2.2) Literature Review
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
8752, resolution 37653 etc. developed by MTC that aim to make bicycling safer and more accessible
throughout the region.
These existing programs and policies mentioned in the relevant plans are consistent with the purpose of the
BPTP Update and will be reflected in the Plan.
Needs and Challenges
Common themes surrounding needs and challenges per review of the plans include:
◼Improving access to neighboring commercial centers
◼Improving bicycle parking facilities
◼Defining a core network of crosstown and recreational routes
◼Introducing traffic calming strategies
◼Drastic changes in future environmental conditions due to climate change
◼Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming
◼Safety concerns such as unsafe crossings due to high vehicular speeds and volumes and unfriendly
freeway interchanges
◼Traffic congestion in educational districts during peak hours
◼Issues related to optimizing bicycle safety such as angle of crossing, smoothness of crossing, gap
between the flangeway and roadway, and closing bike paths at night
◼Uncertainty of funding opportunities
◼Improving level of traffic stress of bicycle facilities on major and minor bike corridors
◼Failure to yield to pedestrians on the roadway
◼Bicycle theft
Plans and Projects
Some plans and projects recommendations that have been initiated through adoption of these plans
include:
◼Across barrier connections across the City (Adobe Creek Highway 101 Overcrossing, Caltrain/Alma
Barrier Crossing at Matadero Creek etc.)
◼Trails and Shared Use Pathway projects (Embarcadero Road / Rinconada Park Sidepath, Adobe Creek
Reach Trail etc.)
◼Bicycle boulevard projects (Castilleja-Park-Wilkie Bicycle Boulevard, Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
etc.)
◼Intersection spot improvements (El Camino Real Intersection Through-Markings, Charleston Road at
Middlefield Road Bicycle Through-Lanes etc.)
◼Infrastructure Programs (Bicycle Parking Corral / Rack Installation Program, Pedestrian Countdown
Signals & Crossings Program etc.)
◼System rehabilitation and Maintenance (Castilleja Street-Park Boulevard, Lytton Avenue etc.)
◼Design, Feasibility, and Planning (Middlefield Road "Complete Street" Plan Line Study, Embarcadero
Road Plan Line Study etc.)
◼Non-Infrastructure - Education Encouragement (Citywide Traffic Counts and Data Collection, Bike Palo
Alto! / Palo Alto Sunday Streets etc.)
2 First adopted in 1980 and most recently amended in 2005, this resolution guides the allocation of the “Transportation
Development Act, Article 3,” which funds $2.9 million worth of Bay Area bicycle projects annually
3 This resolution, adopted in 2006, requires agencies applying for regional transportation funds to document how the
needs of bicyclists and pedestrians were considered in the process of planning and/or designing the project for which
funds are requested
4
Packet Pg. 37
Page 5 October 24, 2023
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Literature Review (Task 2.2) Literature Review
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses; plan, design and redevelop
Cubberley Community Center
◼Incorporate 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park
◼Demonstration projects: Hale Avenue Extension, SkyLANE, 101/Blossom Hill Road, Lundy Place
Connector, Diridon Bicycle Connections
◼Freeway interchange improvements (I-280/Page Mill Interim Improvements)
◼Planned Bicycle Bridge/Undercrossing (Stanford Avenue /Seale Avenue, San Francisquito Creek,
Adobe Creek Bridge)
Public Input
Community feedback and public input is a crucial factor throughout long -term planning processes. It helps
inform and shape the final recommendations of plans. Most plans significantly invested in conducting public
workshops, public surveys, open houses and community engagement events to hear from the public
throughout the development of the plan. Common themes and takeaways per the review of the relevant
plans include:
◼Providing accessible and safe active transportation (walking, biking, etc.) routes to natural open
space, community centers and parks is a high priority
◼Enhancing physical and mental well-being is a critical function of parks for people who live, work and
play in Palo Alto. Loop trails, bicycle and pedestrian paths to parks and places to relax are top priorities,
along with exercise equipment or additional classes
◼Low-stress bicycle facilities are desired
◼Frequently requested bicycle infrastructure improvements include more trail lighting, better
accommodation at signalized intersections, better access and signage to bicycle paths, more
frequent maintenance, more space to store bicycles on transit vehicles, secure bicycle parking
◼Access to Berryessa BART, connections to east San Jose, completion of the Coyote Creek Trail and
Guadalupe River Trail, north-south connections in east and central Santa Clara County are desired
◼Design safer and more intuitive highway crossings and interchanges
◼Streamline and communicate the process for local agencies to engage with Caltrans and for Caltrans
to engage with local communities
◼Increase investment in bicycle facilities on state highways
◼Preference for fully dedicated bike facilities that is separate from traffic and has space for multiple
modes
◼Bike highways should prioritize access and connection for low-income and disadvantaged
communities and people without personal access to vehicles
Community Partners and Champions
Community partners and champions involved in the formulation of some of these plans include:
◼The Junior Museum and Zoo
◼The Children’s Theatre
◼Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP)
◼Palo Alto Art Center (PAAC)
◼Police Department staff
◼PTA Transportation Safety Representatives at each PAUSD school
◼Student representatives
◼School principals
◼PAUSD staff in Sustainability
◼County Department of Public Health
◼Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
4
Packet Pg. 38
Page 6 October 24, 2023
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Literature Review (Task 2.2) Literature Review
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼Almaden Valley Cycling Club
◼County Parks and Recreation Department
◼Santa Clara Valley Water District
◼Bicycling advocacy organizations
◼Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District)
◼Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
◼Business Community
◼Community-Based Organizations, Advocates and Non-Profits
◼County Transportation Agencies (CTAs)
Data and Other Resources
Data that would be relevant to this Plan based on the review of the relevant plans include:
◼Percentage of workers who bike to work, by place of residence, in Santa Clara County (2015) –
(Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Network, 2018)
◼Financially constrained projects in Santa Clara County - (VTA Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040,
2014)
◼Regional bikeway network mapping - (MTC’s Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area
Update, 2009)
◼Average Bay Area weekday bicycle trips (2000) - (MTC’s Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco
Bay Area Update, 2009)
◼Motor vehicle/bicycle collision analysis - (MTC’s Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area
Update, 2009)
◼Unbuilt regional bikeway network mapping - (MTC’s Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay
Area Update, 2009)
◼Santa Clara County top tier projects – (Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan, 2018)
◼Collision data – (Palo Alto’s Local Road Safety Plan by VTA, 2022)
◼Collision classification – (Palo Alto’s Local Road Safety Plan by VTA, 2022)
◼Bicycle/pedestrian collisions – (Palo Alto’s Local Road Safety Plan by VTA, 2022)
◼Top collision trends – (Palo Alto’s Local Road Safety Plan by VTA, 2022)
◼High injury network – (Palo Alto’s Local Road Safety Plan by VTA, 2022)
4
Packet Pg. 39
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: LAM DO
SUPERINTENDENT OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 23, 2024
SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE PERFORMANCE FISCAL YEAR 2023
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report on the performance of the City’s golf course. No action is
recommended.
BACKGROUND
In May 2018, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course re-opened as the Baylands Golf Links after a
course renovation. The new course included a full reconfiguration of the 18-hole course layout to
conform with a Baylands setting and some modification of practice facilities. Since re-opening, the
course has been operated by a single golf management company providing course maintenance, golf
practice and course play, and food and beverage service. Along with the course renovation, this is a
change from prior operations of having three different service providers. With full service provided
by a single golf management company, the course has experienced improvements in operations and
customer service.
When the golf course re-opened, green fees were established with a range to accommodate dynamic
pricing, where green fees fluctuate based on time of day, day of week, and demand. Green fees are
also tiered with Palo Alto residency, Bay Area residency, and visitor rates. The combination of
dynamic pricing, tiered pricing, and high demand since the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in
strong green fee revenue to support operating costs.
DISCUSSION
The golf course offers general public course play, tournament play, club play, and youth play.
Course play is supplemented with practice facilities consisting of a driving range, putting green,
chipping green, and a teaching lesson program. The course draws players regionally across several
counties, with most players from Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties.
Youth programs held at the course consist Palo Alto public high school golf teams, First Tee -
Silicon Valley, Youth on Course, and seasonal golf camps. Youth programs include boys and girls
participation at all skill levels and are available to youth throughout the region, except for the high
school golf teams. The programs are offered either by the City or through a partner organization
with subsidized or reduced fees available.
In Fiscal Year 2019, the first full fiscal year of operations after course renovations, green fee revenue
from course play and tournaments overachieved its financial pro-forma projection and budget.
However, revenue from merchandise sales underachieved sales targets. This resulted in overall
revenue from golf operations at 6% under target.
5
Packet Pg. 40
For Fiscal Year 2020, the overall revenue target was increased in alignment with prior pro-formas.
As the prior fiscal year resulted in strong green fee revenue, this revenue category was increased
while the revenue target for merchandise sales was decreased. However, in Fiscal Year 2020 the
golf course underperformed financially by 26% less than target. During part of the first eight months
of the fiscal year, the course was impacted by poor air quality throughout the region from the 2019
fire season. The course then closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s shelter in place
Health Order implemented by Santa Clara County and remained closed during most of the key
spring season. The impacts of the fire season and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to financial
performance can also be viewed from the perspective of golf rounds played at 42,429 rounds where
the target was 58,449 rounds. This reflects 27% fewer rounds of golf played than targeted rounds.
Similarly, overall revenue was 26% less than targeted budget.
For Fiscal Year 2021, the State and County Health Orders were relaxed from singles play to allow
group foursome play and the impact on golf operations was an increase in daily capacity for golf
rounds. With few social distanced activities and options, the general public continued to choose golf
throughout the fiscal year resulting in revenues 29% higher than target and the first fiscal year since
course renovation that the golf course exceeded revenues above target. A comparison of rounds of
golf played in Fiscal Year 2020 vs. 2021 reflects a 49% increase of 42,429 vs. 63,352 rounds. The
increase in revenue and rounds of golf played were also reflected at golf courses in the region and
throughout the country, each with varying degrees.
In Fiscal Year 2022, the strong revenue performance of the golf course continued throughout the
fiscal year. Overall, revenue was $5.3M and 32% above revenue target. Rounds of golf played were
the highest since the opening of the renovated course at 64,157 rounds. Demand for golf during the
COVID-19 pandemic paired with a high number of warm and sunny days contributed to the course’s
increased utilization rate and course play. In particular, the winter and spring seasons were warmer
than usual with very little precipitation.
During Fiscal Year 2023, the course experienced a decline in performance associated with lower
demand and an inclement winter season of numerous atmospheric river rainstorms paired with
several windstorms resulting in extended course flooding. Overall, revenue from golf play, practice,
and merchandise sales was $5.0M and a decline of 7% from the prior year. The course also had a
decline in golf rounds down to 56,314 rounds played.
The following table compares player residency and reflects golf rounds for Fiscal Year 2023. The
course has continued to increase its draw of players from Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. This is
reflected in 75% of players residing in the county, with 40% of players being Palo Alto residents.
This is the highest percentage of players from Palo Alto since the course was renovated.
5
Packet Pg. 41
Golf management company OB Sports is the course operator and are under contract with the City
through the end of Fiscal Year 2024, with a mutual option for both parties to renew the contract for
an additional three years. They provide a full suite of services on behalf of the City including course
maintenance, course bookings, course play, golf practice, lessons, and golf shop sales. They also
provide food and beverage service and host banquets at the Bay Café as their own business through a
lease of the restaurant facility. Thus, food and beverage revenue are not factored in the golf course’s
operating budget.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for golf operations is budgeted in the Community Services Department’s General Fund
budget which is annually reviewed and approved by the City Council. The golf budget is
contained within the department budget and published annually in the City’s Adopted Operating
Budget.
PREPARED BY: __________________________________________________________
LAM DO
Superintendent Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division
Community Services Department
5
Packet Pg. 42