News

New golf course to uproot 500 trees in the Baylands

Renovation of Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course gets support from Planning and Transportation Commission, despite concerns over tree removal

A dramatic overhaul of Palo Alto's golf course in the Baylands scored another victory Wednesday night when the city's planning commissioners gave the project a nod of endorsement despite concerns about a proposed gym at the golf course site and a planned removal of 500 trees.

The latter concern was also a subject of many comments at Tuesday night's "open house" meeting on the golf course renovation, according to Shilpa Trisal, the city's environmental consultant for the project. Both meetings were held to give residents and city officials an opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the renovation of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course -- a project that is spearheaded by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority.

The Planning and Transportation Commission voted 6-0, on Wednesday to approve the site and design for the project, which in addition to rearranging the entire course (giving it what city officials describe as the "Wow!" factor) would also add three athletic fields to the current golf course site. Most crucially, the project would allow the creek authority to relocate an old levee, thereby bolstering flood control at the vulnerable downstream area between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay. The area, which includes portions of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, was severely flooded during a February 1998 storm.

Commissioners found much to like about the project, most notably all the landscape improvements that will be made to the course to emphasize its Baylands location. But they were less pleased with the tree removal, which course designer Forrest Richardson said is necessary to make the redesign work.

Richardson said the project team had identified "iconic trees" – those that would fit the design and were in good health – and integrated about 80 percent of them into the finished design. These included a stone pine, which does well in salt soil, and a large eucalyptus tree, Richard said. But most trees were in poor condition, he said. The designers used city's tree survey as a guide.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"A great percentage of trees are in very poor health and very marginal – some have died since the survey was completed."

"You're not going to be able to fill the site and preserve all the trees there," Richardson said.

Tree health isn't the only reason. Availability of space is another one. With the golf course being reduced in space from 170 to 156 acres and with the creation of three playing fields, "you're not going to be able to fill the site and preserve all the trees there," Richardson said. In addition, the city is reserving some space for a potential gymnasium – a design element that is unfunded and that proved particularly unpopular among planning commissioners.

Walter Passmore, the city's urban forester, said staff had considered transplanting the trees to another site, but an analysis determined that they would have a very small chance of surviving the operation, which would require between 75 percent and 90 percent of the trees' roots to be severed.

"We think the potential to transplant the trees and have them thrive in the new location is not very good," Passmore said. "This doesn't mean we couldn't continue to evaluate that, but at this point we don't think it's a very efficient option for us."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

The city is, however, committed to planting new trees in other, more suitable locations, said Rob de Geus, assistant director of the Community Services Department. Moreover, while staff is concerned about the tree removals, it is also excited about the ecological restoration that is part of the project, de Geus said. The flood-control project will "add over 50 acres of natural Bayland area to what wasn't there before." The managed turf area would reduced by about 40 percent, from 135 acres to 81 acres. There's value in having this land restored, de Geus said.

In addition, the lost canopy would be replaced fully within 10 years because of a partnership between the city and nonprofit groups Canopy, Acterra and Magic. Some of these trees would be planted at the golf course, de Geus said, "others in areas where trees do much better and are more appropriate, like the Foothills."

The explanation largely satisfied the commission, which approved the site and design after many questions but little debate. The commission's resident golf aficionado, Vice Chair Mark Michael, urged staff and the designers to think creatively about using trees as design elements on the course. Michael recited a catalog of notable golf course trees, including the cypress on the 18th hole at Pebble Beach and the "majestic oak trees" near the 13th hole at Stanford's golf course. These trees make the courses more challenging and more interesting, Michael said.

"It isn't so much the quantity of trees but the quality of trees and where they're placed," Michael said. "It obviously won't be a forested area – it's seaside, bayside links – but you can do some really interesting things when you put trees in places that create both scenic interest and maybe some challenge."

Trees were just one area of concern. Commissioners were far from enthusiastic about the proposed new gym in the Baylands. Alex Panelli was particularly vehement in his opposition to the facility.

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

"I think it has no place there in the Baylands," Panelli said, noting that the area is zoned for open space. "I just can't get my head around that."

Commission Chair Eduardo Martinez and Commissioner Arthur Keller shared his concerns, with Martinez arguing that the gym would not be in compliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan (its land-use bible) and urging staff to look at other locations, closer to neighborhoods and transit points.

The city, he said, "should be looking for a location closer to where the children and families go for basketball or any other type of indoor sport." Overall, though, he said he supports the project.

"And I want it to go forward, so we can all be out there watching the vice chair play golf on Saturday," Martinez said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

New golf course to uproot 500 trees in the Baylands

Renovation of Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course gets support from Planning and Transportation Commission, despite concerns over tree removal

A dramatic overhaul of Palo Alto's golf course in the Baylands scored another victory Wednesday night when the city's planning commissioners gave the project a nod of endorsement despite concerns about a proposed gym at the golf course site and a planned removal of 500 trees.

The latter concern was also a subject of many comments at Tuesday night's "open house" meeting on the golf course renovation, according to Shilpa Trisal, the city's environmental consultant for the project. Both meetings were held to give residents and city officials an opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the renovation of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course -- a project that is spearheaded by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority.

The Planning and Transportation Commission voted 6-0, on Wednesday to approve the site and design for the project, which in addition to rearranging the entire course (giving it what city officials describe as the "Wow!" factor) would also add three athletic fields to the current golf course site. Most crucially, the project would allow the creek authority to relocate an old levee, thereby bolstering flood control at the vulnerable downstream area between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay. The area, which includes portions of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, was severely flooded during a February 1998 storm.

Commissioners found much to like about the project, most notably all the landscape improvements that will be made to the course to emphasize its Baylands location. But they were less pleased with the tree removal, which course designer Forrest Richardson said is necessary to make the redesign work.

Richardson said the project team had identified "iconic trees" – those that would fit the design and were in good health – and integrated about 80 percent of them into the finished design. These included a stone pine, which does well in salt soil, and a large eucalyptus tree, Richard said. But most trees were in poor condition, he said. The designers used city's tree survey as a guide.

"A great percentage of trees are in very poor health and very marginal – some have died since the survey was completed."

"You're not going to be able to fill the site and preserve all the trees there," Richardson said.

Tree health isn't the only reason. Availability of space is another one. With the golf course being reduced in space from 170 to 156 acres and with the creation of three playing fields, "you're not going to be able to fill the site and preserve all the trees there," Richardson said. In addition, the city is reserving some space for a potential gymnasium – a design element that is unfunded and that proved particularly unpopular among planning commissioners.

Walter Passmore, the city's urban forester, said staff had considered transplanting the trees to another site, but an analysis determined that they would have a very small chance of surviving the operation, which would require between 75 percent and 90 percent of the trees' roots to be severed.

"We think the potential to transplant the trees and have them thrive in the new location is not very good," Passmore said. "This doesn't mean we couldn't continue to evaluate that, but at this point we don't think it's a very efficient option for us."

The city is, however, committed to planting new trees in other, more suitable locations, said Rob de Geus, assistant director of the Community Services Department. Moreover, while staff is concerned about the tree removals, it is also excited about the ecological restoration that is part of the project, de Geus said. The flood-control project will "add over 50 acres of natural Bayland area to what wasn't there before." The managed turf area would reduced by about 40 percent, from 135 acres to 81 acres. There's value in having this land restored, de Geus said.

In addition, the lost canopy would be replaced fully within 10 years because of a partnership between the city and nonprofit groups Canopy, Acterra and Magic. Some of these trees would be planted at the golf course, de Geus said, "others in areas where trees do much better and are more appropriate, like the Foothills."

The explanation largely satisfied the commission, which approved the site and design after many questions but little debate. The commission's resident golf aficionado, Vice Chair Mark Michael, urged staff and the designers to think creatively about using trees as design elements on the course. Michael recited a catalog of notable golf course trees, including the cypress on the 18th hole at Pebble Beach and the "majestic oak trees" near the 13th hole at Stanford's golf course. These trees make the courses more challenging and more interesting, Michael said.

"It isn't so much the quantity of trees but the quality of trees and where they're placed," Michael said. "It obviously won't be a forested area – it's seaside, bayside links – but you can do some really interesting things when you put trees in places that create both scenic interest and maybe some challenge."

Trees were just one area of concern. Commissioners were far from enthusiastic about the proposed new gym in the Baylands. Alex Panelli was particularly vehement in his opposition to the facility.

"I think it has no place there in the Baylands," Panelli said, noting that the area is zoned for open space. "I just can't get my head around that."

Commission Chair Eduardo Martinez and Commissioner Arthur Keller shared his concerns, with Martinez arguing that the gym would not be in compliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan (its land-use bible) and urging staff to look at other locations, closer to neighborhoods and transit points.

The city, he said, "should be looking for a location closer to where the children and families go for basketball or any other type of indoor sport." Overall, though, he said he supports the project.

"And I want it to go forward, so we can all be out there watching the vice chair play golf on Saturday," Martinez said.

Comments

CrescentParkAnon.
Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:37 am
CrescentParkAnon., Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:37 am

> "I think it has no place there in the Baylands," Panelli said, noting that the area is zoned for open space. "I just can't get my head around that."

Yes ... and why is this being done ?

Is there any kind of vision statement from our city government as to what it is they are supposed to be working towards in the future in Palo Alto. Do local people have absolutely no consideration and development just goes on and on not matter what? That does not seem like a city government that is doing a good job to me, or its job at all - unless it is to be bribed into complicity.


PolicySage
Barron Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:48 am
PolicySage, Barron Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:48 am

It must be very frustrating for those interested in the importance of the urban canopy to see trees being sacrificed to suit the desires of golfing enthusiasts.


mzmiranda
Menlo Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:51 am
mzmiranda, Menlo Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:51 am

Who stands to profit from the gym? Where's the money? I don't understand who wouid drive out there to use a gym. Let's have some transparency here.

Whose idea is the gym?

Who profits?

Who would be served?


anon
Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:52 am
anon, Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:52 am

Was there any discussion about plans to trade the 7+ acres adjacent to foot hill park that was gifted by a family to the city to be added to Foothill park (and adjacent to Mr. Arrillaga's property in the Hills) to Mr. Arrillaga?

He has proposed the city give him the 7+ acres in trade for constructing soccer fields and the "shell" of the gym that are proposed for the golf course site.


observer
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:56 am
observer, Old Palo Alto
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:56 am

The entire project is a disaster waiting to happen. OK, create the three playing fields and remove the trees there. But, upgrade the golf course; don't redo it. And, forget the gym. No room. Plus, does anyone ever consider the increased traffic, parking problems and polution created by these proposals?


CrescentParkAnon.
Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:58 am
CrescentParkAnon., Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:58 am

Anything out in the Baylands is an ugly inferior mess thanks to the Palo Alto airport.

Can anyone imagine Palo Alto as an outstanding golf course ... Pebble Beach, Spyglass Hill, Torrey Pines ..... Palo Alto .... LOL!

Like they say in capitalism, golf is not the highest best use of our bay-front property, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE A FRICKIN AIRPLANE IS FLYING OVER JUST ABOUT EVERY MINUTE OR TWO.

It is over-emphasizing golf which whatever in Palo Alto happens, Palo Alto is not going to be the center of golf in the Bay Area SO - it is not worth sacrificing our environment to make changes which would be stupid - except someone has to the money to grease the skids and force it through.

Building places where you are intending to enjoy outdoor activities right next to an airport that generates hearing damaging noise for nearly the whole day is nothing short of idiotic.


Anon
Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 11:00 am
Anon, Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 11:00 am

It would be interesting to know what the value of the soccer fields and the "shell" of a building ( which may be in an inappropriate location ) is compared to the 7+ acres that a family left ( in their will i think ?? ) to be added to a Foothill park that the city staff is planning on trading away.

Parkland in PA can only be changed to another purpose (undedicated) by a majority vote of residents.


Here come the bulldozers
Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05 am
Here come the bulldozers, Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05 am

Commission Chair Eduardo Martinez shared the concerns but voted for the project anyway.
500 trees to be removed to make space for construction.
The city seems corrupt from top to bottom.


Wayne Martin
Fairmeadow
on Jun 27, 2013 at 11:12 am
Wayne Martin, Fairmeadow
on Jun 27, 2013 at 11:12 am

A gym? Why is this crazy idea getting traction?

This whole process is out-of-control.


anon
Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 11:26 am
anon, Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 11:26 am

Not sure if the family that left the land, nearly 8 acres, to the city to be added to Foothill Park knew Mr. Arrillaga; but seems like if they wanted to gift the land to a neighbor they would have done so..... Hope there are some survivors to see that the final wishes are respected.


anon2
Green Acres
on Jun 27, 2013 at 12:03 pm
anon2, Green Acres
on Jun 27, 2013 at 12:03 pm

@policysage,
And meanwhile, not a peep about the 90 fruit trees and 2 giant oaks that will come out as a result of the Maybell fiasco. (Suddenly, those 2 giant oaks are not healthy enough to be saved, conveniently the ones the developer most needs to disappear.)

Neighbors have been asking the City to turn the Maybell property into a low-traffic Community Orchard/park, and help relocate the planned project to a more transit-friendly location. (Referendum signature gathering starts Saturday, I think.)


Paul Losch
Registered user
Community Center
on Jun 27, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Paul Losch, Community Center
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Think of the Baylands as a recreational complex. Baseball field, softball field, golf course, playing fields for soccer, lacrosse and the like, plus a gym where the old PASCO trash trucks used to be parked, directly adjacent to the baseball field, and across Geng Road from the 10 acres of land proposed in the golf course re-design.

There is no question that Palo Alto suffers from a shortage of playing fields and gym space. That set of problems is well documented, and has been that way for years, despite some improvements.

There also is no question that as a built-out community, the options for where to add new recreational facilities are limited at best. It would be great to get a new gym west of Hiway 101, and just where would the space for such a facility be?

Imagine a recreational complex that provides venues for the numerous and growing demands for different athletic endeavors Palo Altans, kids and adults. The alternative? An unacceptable status quo. Someone who questions the merits of this concept should offer up another approach, not merely pooh pooh what is being discussed.


the_punnisher
Registered user
Mountain View
on Jun 27, 2013 at 12:37 pm
the_punnisher, Mountain View
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2013 at 12:37 pm

Solve two problems at once! Listen to the late George Carlin's " Golf Courses for the homeless "!

Web Link


( warning: explicit dialog )

Several TRUTHS about the history of Palo Alto are mentioned in the dialog. Some I've mentioned before on this forum.


Incredulous
Meadow Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Incredulous, Meadow Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 12:56 pm

500 trees killed? That's insane? Who bribed whom?


oh please
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm
oh please, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm

No one complained when they destroyed all those trees in the way of the new Mitchell Park Library.


Tulach Ard!
Stanford
on Jun 27, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Tulach Ard!, Stanford
on Jun 27, 2013 at 1:04 pm

This is a really bad idea, and it may be ( probably is) illegal.

Several years ago, a San Jose developer wanted badly to build a golf course and condos in Alviso, in the Don Edwards Open Space Bird Refuge. he offered a lot of money, way more that the marshy land was worth. But the city of SJ, Santa Clara County, and even the state of CA governments stopped the developer from doing it, and threatened him with monumental fines that even HE could not afford.

Once an area becomes "open space". It can never be developed. Period. The end.


Paul Losch
Registered user
Community Center
on Jun 27, 2013 at 1:18 pm
Paul Losch, Community Center
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2013 at 1:18 pm

I have one additional observation about open space. A place that has been a parking lot for garbage trucks and is adjoined by office buildings on two of its three sides is not a pristine spot, and it does no have any trees. We can do better with that lot.


Hmmm
East Palo Alto
on Jun 27, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Hmmm, East Palo Alto
on Jun 27, 2013 at 1:20 pm

Anyone else appreciating the irony of a golf course planner named Forrest?

It's projects like these that are rife w/environmental concerns - which affect people beyond city limits. It's hard to balance recreational needs of a growth area w/environmental necessities, but removing such a high number of trees makes it more difficult. Obviously, the trees have been neglected, making it easier to decide to remove them. Why weren't they taken care of previously? 10 years is a long time for the new trees to make a needed difference in the area.

Kudos to the JPA for the habitat restoration - seeing that in various areas of the baylands is wonderful.

This project sounds mixed - some good stuff, some bad - resulting in what the "VIPs" are hoping to have - an ego boost based on the Wow factor & more crowding, more cars. Why must every recreation area be constantly crowded w/people to be considered of value? Is this Palo Alto feeling left in the dust by Menlo's recreational "improvements"?


Robert
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Robert, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Another worse-than-worthless project approved by the Planning Commission. Destroying 500 trees so that golfers can whack their little spheres on a more modern course?! What this shows is that Palo Alto, completely in love with itself, has really not come very far at all in developing a consciousness that values unspoiled nature as important to our psychic and spiritual well-being. This town is being destroyed by more and more dense development day after day, bringing more and more frayed nerves, more and more traffic, requiring new parking structures, which means either (a) tearing down existing buildings that may have some character and replacing them with faceless sterile parking structures, or (b) building on hitherto undeveloped land.
It's enough to make one vomit.


PA Resident
Los Altos
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm
PA Resident, Los Altos
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm

Who benefits from the gym? Everyone. People get healthier, less medical bills, lower insurance, people are happier being healthier.


CrescentParkAnon.
Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm
CrescentParkAnon., Crescent Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm

IT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA TO LOOK AT USING THE BAYLANDS FOR RECREATION, I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT HERE FOR A LONG TIME NOW.

HOWEVER - PUTTING A RECREATIONAL FACILITY WHERE THERE IS A SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY THAT STINKS AND AN AIRPORT THAT PUTS AIRPLANES CONSTANTLY OVERHEAD DOES NOT COMPUTE.

GET RID OF THE AIRPORT, THAT IS A START TOWARDS SOME KIND OF RATIONALITY.

START TO TAKE CARE OF THE BAYLANDS AND PUT SOME RANGERS OUT THERE SO PEOPLE CAN BE SAFE.

A GOLF COURSE IS A WATER INTENSIVE BUST IN TERMS OF RECREATION AND EVEN STILL PALO ALTO GOLF IS A POOR USE OF LAND IN TERMS OF USAGE FOR THE AVERAGE PALO ALTAN.

WHEN PAUL LOSCH IS SAYING RECREATION HE MEANS BUSINESS REALLY, THAT'S ALL.


Elliott
Professorville
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Elliott, Professorville
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:26 pm

The City has to do what it knows how to do. And, we all know the City really knows how to cut trees.


Paul Losch
Registered user
Community Center
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Paul Losch, Community Center
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2013 at 2:36 pm

CPA,

The sewage treatment plant and the airport have many issues that attend them, definitely affects the golf course, as they have for years.

A bona fide recreational complex along Geng Road, close to HiWay 101, presents different issues that IMHO must be distinguished from issues around things further along Embarcadero Road.


Stan
Southgate
on Jun 27, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Stan, Southgate
on Jun 27, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Only Paul Losch seems the voice of reason on this topic.

I sincerely doubt the negative opinions offered on this and other Palo Alto Online topics represent the feelings of a vast majority of Palo Altans. I believe consistent voting results and in-depth surveys by the City Auditor deliver a more balanced, and favorable, message.


Ex-Pat
Mountain View
on Jun 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Ex-Pat, Mountain View
on Jun 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm

We moved to Mountain View (cheaper too)


boscoli
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm
boscoli, Old Palo Alto
on Jun 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm

For the Baylands to have any any recreational and environmental value, the airport must be shut down. Its shutdown is also absolutely necessary if Palo Alto is ever to regain its soul.


Brian
Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Brian, Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm

I want to speak to one comment I saw several times on this thread. Gym space in Palo Alto is quite limited compared to needs. For several years, I have been associated with the main youth basketball league (NJB) in Palo Alto. The main problem we have had during that time is finding gym space for practices and games. For a couple of those years, we actually had to lease a few nights a week at Canada College; many people had to travel there for practices. We also use the Mid Peninsula HS gym in Menlo Park/East PA. Our gym space at the middle schools is expensive, and is often canceled at the last minute by competing uses. Of course, there are many other teams (school and non-school) competing for the available space in winter, especially volleyball. I also want to make the point (because I know the people on PAOnline will comment negatively) that all (well, at least 98%) of the kids who are in PANJB are Palo Alto children. During games on Sundays, they will be playing teams from surrounding areas.


Brian
Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Brian, Evergreen Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm

I should have mentioned that PA NJB generally has 40-45 10-member teams for kids in grades 3-8.


anon2
Green Acres
on Jun 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm
anon2, Green Acres
on Jun 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm

@ Brian,
Is way out at the Baylands really the best, most environmentally friendly place to put a gym? Just asking...


Nora Charles
Stanford
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Nora Charles, Stanford
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Hmmmm,
That name IS ironic indeed!

The war on trees in Palo Alto continues. This is just sickening.


sad
Palo Verde
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:06 pm
sad, Palo Verde
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:06 pm

What I read about the trees, albeit not complete, was that there are "X" iconic and healthy trees, the remaining are in poor health or at the end of their lifetime. Of those "X", 80% will be retained.
It would be nice to know what that "X" is and compare it to the 500 other trees that would be removed.
Also, 500 sounds like a huge number, but where and how big are they? I don't believe, but would like to know for sure, that the 500 are all 50+ feet, 3-foot diameter trees. Most are possibly much smaller. I think the key issue is not that 500 will be removed, but how many and where will be replaced? Trees appropriate to the bayland, tidal marsh, windy environment? It does not mean that it will be barren.
Finally, what is most troubling to me is that there are so many people who have been frustrated by the city for so long that they immediately think the worst of any project - incompetent, corrupt, bribery, give-away, worse than worthless, destroyed by development, vomit, etc were all used to describe this. How sad. PLEASE - I am not saying your feelings are invalid. Only that a potentially large segment of our citizens are so negatively polarized. We seem to have become a microcosm of the Senate and House. Yet I myself and not sure how to make it beter.


Ira
Monroe Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Ira, Monroe Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:52 pm

There is no war on trees in Palo Alto, where we have more trees than most communities. The number of trees is not even the most important metric; the square feet of leaf space might be a better number to discuss. All trees are not equal. Trying to save a sick tree planted in an inappropriate habitat is futile. If the trees can be replaced with equivalents in more suitable locations then I am in favor of it.


Bobbie
Esther Clark Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Bobbie, Esther Clark Park
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:54 pm

It's OK if they replace the failing trees with all new trees that will do better. Or is it just money trees they're after?


David
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm
David , Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm

The soil growing conditions at the golf course do not allow for many significantly large trees. The tree's roots grow down into the bay salt and kill those species that don't tolerate these salts. Replacing the trees is a great option and will allow the designers to place appropriate trees in correct locations. The typical ratio for mitigation is 3:1 or 4:1. This means that 1,500 to 2,000 trees must be replanted. There is no way that a smaller golf course can accommodate this quantity. Looking for other locations like the foothills is a great idea and will benefit our open space preserves and parks. For all the nay sayers, the golf course has lost MANY trees in the last 10-20 years during wet and windy conditions of winter. No one complained when Mother Nature removed all those years ago (100+).


David
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm
David , Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm

The soil growing conditions at the golf course do not allow for many significantly large trees. The tree's roots grow down into the bay salt and kill those species that don't tolerate these salts. Replacing the trees is a great option and will allow the designers to place appropriate trees in correct locations. The typical ratio for mitigation is 3:1 or 4:1. This means that 1,500 to 2,000 trees must be replanted. There is no way that a smaller golf course can accommodate this quantity. Looking for other locations like the foothills is a great idea and will benefit our open space preserves and parks. For all the nay sayers, the golf course has lost MANY trees in the last 10-20 years during wet and windy conditions of winter. No one complained when Mother Nature removed all those years ago (100+).


Trees are more important
Midtown
on Jun 27, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Trees are more important, Midtown
on Jun 27, 2013 at 7:34 pm

Trees are good. People are evil. The most important thing I n palo alto are trees. Trees should never be removed for any reason , no matter what the condition of the tree or th danger it ay present. If a tree falls and crushes a child or a home-- it is the child or homes fault for being in the wrong location.


jk
University South
on Jun 28, 2013 at 2:29 am
jk, University South
on Jun 28, 2013 at 2:29 am

I always thought walking through the Baylands in its quiet and subtle habitat was like seeing an impressionist landscape painting. I was reminded of Claude Monet. That was plenty Wow enough for me.


musical
Palo Verde
on Jun 28, 2013 at 4:11 am
musical, Palo Verde
on Jun 28, 2013 at 4:11 am

I enjoy the Baylands also, except it's closed and off-limits half the time, like between sunset and sunrise.


CrescentParkAnon.
Crescent Park
on Jun 28, 2013 at 4:19 am
CrescentParkAnon., Crescent Park
on Jun 28, 2013 at 4:19 am

Speaking about the Palo Alto ethos concerning trees, and most of the government policies, there is no real logic, metrics, goals or mission statement by which to measure actions - that is why the city government is bad and can get away with all this nonsense.

On the one hand, if anyone in Palo Alto wants to get rid of a tree and they go to get permission they are told that most trees are heritage trees and must remain in place.

Unless it's the city, and they can clear cut vast swaths of the city, for their own motives, or in support or some other interests that never gets revealed. They can declare trees sick and cut them down.

The city's policy's seems overtly braindead - calculatedly, so there is nothing anyone can point to as having been violated in letter or spirit and the public has no power and no recourse.

We like trees, but even stuff we like must be managed. I don't begrudge some of the work the city has done on trees. Along San Antonio Avenue it looked bleak and was hot and too bright to drive, but that area needed a change - it seemed necessary and it is being landscaped and starting to grow in.

Chopping up California street, well - maybe not so much ... it's pretty bad.

But some of the trees in Palo Alto are TOO big. I have a giant sequoia tree just to the south of my house that leaves most of my front yard and roof in the shadows all day. It makes solar power on my roof impossible. That tree and some others should go, but if you leave it up to people I guess the city thinks we will cut down all the trees.

Trees are more important than people, unless you are the city and then money is more important than trees, or anything else.

Has anyone gone out there and walked around? Go out there with a friend and take a walk one day. See if you can hold a conversation over the noise of the planes taking off and landing. I was out there the other morning and a plane was going by once every minute or two almost the whole time I was there. I really do not understand what fun people get from going out to the Palo Alto range and playing golf?

Mountain View did pretty well in the 80's building Shoreline Park ... and Palo Alto's bay front still looks like a dump - but we do not even get the benefits of having the dump there any longer.


curmudgeon
Downtown North
on Jun 28, 2013 at 9:29 am
curmudgeon, Downtown North
on Jun 28, 2013 at 9:29 am

"The alternative?"

Close the airport and open the land for the community.


Rhymer Robbie
Evergreen Park
on Jun 28, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Rhymer Robbie, Evergreen Park
on Jun 28, 2013 at 9:46 pm

Stoopid beyond belief! Who would go so far out of their way to attend a gym in the Baylands?? Who in the world wants to p,ay golf on a course with so much overhead noise?

Get real, get smart, and nip this loser in the bud!


Paul Losch
Community Center
on Jun 29, 2013 at 8:03 am
Paul Losch, Community Center
on Jun 29, 2013 at 8:03 am

Regarding a potential gym...

Is driving to the Baylands better or worse than going out of town? That is what is going on right now.

I rest my case.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2013 at 10:48 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2013 at 10:48 am

I presume the gym is a basketball gym and not a fitness center?

The more adult facilities that can be moved to the Baylands the more the local facilities will be available for our kids who can bike there.

If we are serious about making the Baylands a center for athletics, then we need to make it more of an attractive option. A coffee shop at the very least, but a small restaurant would be great. I know that the snack shack used by Babe Ruth provides snacks to raise money, but unless every group can organize a snack shack team, then we need a better option with regular hours. It is quite interesting that with the golf course, car dealerships, airport and many office complexes that there isn't already a Starbucks out there anyway.


Samuel
Charleston Gardens
on Jun 29, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Samuel, Charleston Gardens
on Jun 29, 2013 at 1:47 pm

This stinks of corruption.


Anonymous
Evergreen Park
on Jun 30, 2013 at 11:37 am
Anonymous, Evergreen Park
on Jun 30, 2013 at 11:37 am

If you guys don't stop removing trees, then Palo Alto it's going to have to change it's name because it won't be applicable to this area without trees.


Not a good smell
Crescent Park
on Jun 30, 2013 at 11:58 am
Not a good smell, Crescent Park
on Jun 30, 2013 at 11:58 am

Funny how plans for development suddenly discover that trees are "diseased."
What's diseased is the moneymaking mentality that's running the show. The obsession with development is truly a mental obsession.
Just because the planners wear sincere masks doesn't mean there isn't money behind the mask.
Samuel said it right:This stinks of corruption.


Paul Losch
Registered user
Community Center
on Jun 30, 2013 at 8:19 pm
Paul Losch, Community Center
Registered user
on Jun 30, 2013 at 8:19 pm

Where's the corruption? I can see neglect by those responsible for the golf course over the years not dealing with dying and inappropriate trees, and to suggest that is corrupt as the golf course is re-designed is disingenuous.

This golf course re-design is being done to make sure that SF Creek does not back up the way it did during the El Nino storm of 15 years ago, 1998. Millions of dollars of damage to property. Homes ruined.

My main complaint is why has it taken so long? I guess we have another 85 years before the next hundred year storm.


Ken
Barron Park
on Jul 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Ken, Barron Park
on Jul 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm

If 500 trees are to be removed, why the heck is one eucalyptus being spared? The eucalyptus tree is non-native and extremely messy. It is also very flammable and prone to falling down in a storm. Take that invasive tree out and replace it with a beautiful California native.


Sigh
East Palo Alto
on Jul 2, 2013 at 11:07 am
Sigh, East Palo Alto
on Jul 2, 2013 at 11:07 am

More traffic to cope with when going to and from home.... Sigh......


Robert
another community
on Jul 3, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Robert, another community
on Jul 3, 2013 at 1:52 pm

Caveat: I am a golfer and do not live in Palo Alto. Perhaps you consider these "strike one" and "strike two," but I'll try to be as objective as possible.

First off, read the report. Most people are freaking out over the "500 trees are going to be cut down" when many of those trees are a mess and not in good shape. In addition, for the expansion of the creek (to try to prevent disastrous flooding), many of those trees have to go, as they border the creek. The new design requires a TON less water, and will have modern computer-controlled equipment to ensure there's less water waste.

On the golf side, I only play Palo Alto a couple times a year (at best) - I play about 40 total rounds a year. Why? The course is awful. No imagination and not well maintained. The only reason I play it occasionally is because it's cheap. I'm willing to spend more money on a better course, particularly one with the proposed design. No "serious" golfer plays Palo Alto because of the reasons above and that it's not challenging. Many courses in the area are packed, even with higher prices than Palo Alto and that's because they're interesting, challenging, and well-maintained. Check out Poplar in San Mateo as an example of a well-run, busy course.

Yes, a golf course is a luxury item, but an excellent golf course can be a good money-maker for the city. Build it and they will come.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.