Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Baylands Driving Range topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Study finds revenue potential for Baylands double‑deck driving range; neighbors urge caution on visual and lighting impacts
Summary
A National Golf Foundation study presented to the commission estimated $1.7M–$2.4M in range revenue and projected incremental net revenue of about $515K–$710K annually if Palo Alto doubles driving‑range capacity and adds ball‑tracking technology; residents cautioned about a 170‑foot net and nighttime lighting.
City staff and a consultant told the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 23 that an expanded, technology‑enhanced double‑deck driving range at Baylands Golf Links could generate substantial incremental revenue, but commissioners and members of the public urged deeper study of visual, lighting and ecological impacts before committing to design or funding.
Lamb Do of the city’s Open Space, Parks and Golf division introduced a financial feasibility study prepared by the National Golf Foundation. Consultant Ed Guthrell said the study’s preliminary program would expand the driving range from about 27 tee stations to as many as 68 across two levels, equip each station with ball‑tracking/launch‑monitor technology, and phase in optional entertainment bays. NGF estimated initial construction costs in the range of $8.4 million to $9.1 million (with optional roof/screen and concession items raising that figure) and projected first‑year gross range revenue of about $1.7 million, growing to $2.4 million by year 10; NGF estimated incremental net revenue to the city of roughly $515,000 in year one, rising to about $710,000 by year five.
Guthrell framed the market opportunity as regional: “There seems to be an active and strong market opportunity for double‑decking and enhancing the range,” he said, citing a dense population within a 30‑minute drive and relatively few competing technology‑enhanced ranges nearby.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about capital‑funding options (debt service versus other sources), whether the netting and pole replacement cost should be treated as a sunk maintenance cost or a project cost, displacement of existing practice areas and parking impacts, potential FAA approvals for increased net heights, and whether increased evening hours and lighting might be needed to meet revenue projections. Staff said the NGF pro forma assumed evening hours (to about 9:00 p.m.) and that technology could be phased in. The consultant noted that a significant share of the cost is pole and netting upgrades; staff observed that netting replacement may be required over time regardless of expansion.
Public speakers urged caution. Herb B. and other residents said the baylands character and scenic Embarcadero Road views are priorities and questioned increasing development intensity there; one speaker warned that “putting a 170 ft tall fence” would be visually intrusive and pressed the commission to assess environmental compatibility first. First Tee program leaders said higher netting could make a previously unusable practice area safe for youth programming, a potential community benefit.
Staff outlined next steps if the commission wishes to proceed: an FAA review for taller netting, a parking and traffic study, environmental/design assessments, and exploring funding and payback scenarios. Commissioners requested additional analysis on (1) the incremental net cost of replacing netting versus full replacement tied to the expansion, (2) public outreach to current range users and neighboring communities, (3) clearer rendering of visual and lighting impacts from key park viewpoints, and (4) comparison of payback periods and priorities against other recreational capital needs.
No vote was taken on the driving‑range concept; staff said it will bring more detailed studies back to the commission before any project authorization.
