|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course underwent a major overhaul a decade ago, the city wanted to ensure that the space reflected its location: the Baylands Nature Preserve. The city hired a golf course design firm that would celebrate the natural wonders of the Embarcadero Road location. Reopening as the Palo Alto Bayland Golf Links in 2018, the 169.8-acre course featured just over 8 acres of non-tidal brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, tidal salt marsh and a freshwater pond.
But that juxtaposition of man and marsh has now gotten the city into hot water.
On Wednesday morning, multiple golfers were spotted cutting through wetlands and grasslands along well-worn shortcut paths that they’ve created going from one green to another. A group of players taking a shortcut through waist-high grasses at the edge of the 11th hole startled a jackrabbit as it was seeking cover. The panicked animal was trying to get into the grassland, but seeing the people, it instead bolted, zig-zagging down the open green and unsure of where to go.
Instead of celebrating the natural environment, some golfers are apparently trampling it, which has led the state to intervene.
A local environmentalist complained to San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board that golfers are damaging the protected areas, prompting authorities to look into wetlands-permit violations at the golf course, a division manager for the water board said.
As part of the golf course redesign, the city received a Water Quality Certification permit that required it to expand the wetlands habitat with specific criteria of planting native plants and removing invasive plant species. The city was to monitor the wetlands at the golf course and produce annual reports for five years.
Each year the percentage of native plants was supposed to meet benchmarks that would ultimately result in a more than 70% conversion to native marshland plants and less than 15% weeds. There were also criteria for maintaining a native grass buffer around the golf course greens and monitoring that the grass used for the greens wouldn’t migrate into the wetlands.
But the city never provided the water board with any annual reports, and it didn’t submit an accounting for the mitigation’s progress during and after the construction, said Keith H. Lichten, division manager of the water board’s Watershed Management Division.
Daren Anderson, assistant director of community services for the city, admitted that the monitoring wasn’t done. City staff is responsible for the mitigation reports. The project didn’t have a compliance officer, he said.
He said in an email on Thursday, June 15, that the city did perform the required protection of existing wetlands and construction of new wetlands on the course.
“These mitigations were completed concurrent with the 2019 golf course project. The monitoring of the golf course wetlands hasn’t been performed. Staff is working with our consultant and the Water Board to complete the monitoring,” he said.
A deed restriction on the golf course wetlands, requiring retention and maintenance of any future land owner, was also supposed to be filed by the city within three months of completing the wetlands-mitigation construction. The city, however, didn’t file the deed restriction, Lichten said.
Anderson didn’t respond to a question regarding the deed.
After being alerted to the water board’s concerns in April 2022, the city hired a consultant to create a vegetation report, “Habitat Conditions & Species Composition,” which documented the plant species found at the golf course baylands in July and August of that year.
Water board authorities didn’t find the report complete enough to evaluate the city’s compliance with the state certification, however.
An April 9 email from Brian Wines, water resource control engineer in the water board’s watershed management division, to Lam Do, the city’s superintendent of open space, parks and golf, noted multiple deficiencies. The report needed a much more detailed assessment of vegetation cover, hydrology, salinity and the physical extent of wetlands, he said.
In addition, captions for some photos in the report also noted some of the wetlands consist chiefly of invasive species, which “is not consistent with the Project’s mitigation requirements,” Wines wrote.
The vegetation report documented concerning activity by golfers who have encroached into the wetlands. Multiple areas have been degraded due to golfers who create shortcuts through the wetlands or in search of lost balls. One area near the sixth green showed tire tracks that had degraded the area to dirt, caused by golf carts and maintenance vehicles.
The wetlands provide cover and food for birds, small mammals and reptiles, and the impacts of the golfers trampling the habitat isn’t clear. One feature of the course is pickleweed, a low-growing, succulent plant characteristic of the San Francisco Bay Area salt marshes. Pickleweed is an important food source for migrating birds and endangered species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Yet, on Wednesday, a golfer was seen hacking into the pickleweed with a golf club while looking for a lost ball rather than taking a drop shot from the green. The deed restriction allows for access to the protected areas by the city‘s staff and golf course patrons to remove golf balls and related golf paraphernalia.
Next steps for the city
Lichten said cities are usually “pretty good” about following up on reports in accordance with their certification requirements.
“I think this one just fell through the cracks. It’s a little surprising,” he said. But he noted the pandemic might have thrown things off, along with staff changes and shortages. He said he has faith that the city will correct the deficiencies. In general, they have been good to work with, he said.
Anderson said the city is working with an ecologist consultant who has a golf course environmental background.
“The consultant is providing guidance for restoration and monitoring at the golf course and preparing a response to the Water Board’s latest communications to the city. Staff anticipates coordinating with the Water Board on the next steps within the next few weeks. The consultant’s fee for studying the initial study of the success of wetland vegetation is $5,070. However, more study and analysis will be required, and the costs haven’t been determined, yet,” he said.
Lichten said the city will have to take specific actions soon. The water board takes a progressive approach to enforcement, and delays could cost the city more money.
The first step is for the city to report where things stand. If the city doesn’t respond, authorities could send a more serious letter, which could lead to a cleanup and abatement order. If the city digs in its heels, there could be administrative civil liabilities. The city could be fined a maximum of $5,000 per day per violation, he said.
The city will have to address the mitigation issues in the next few months before the coming rainy season. Reporting on the wetlands’ current conditions would need to be done in June and July, and areas will need to be planted in September through November, Lichten said. The deed restriction will have to be recorded by the end of the year.
“I don’t want to let any grass – or invasive grass – grow under my feet,” he said.
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
Not exactly objective reporting in my opinion. It is pretty clear that Ms. Dremman is against having a golf course near the wetlands and is trying to shape public opinion here with exaggerated statements and observations. Palo Alto is not in “hot water”.
For anyone who has not golfed at Baylands before, the areas in question are minuscule. Yes, there are probably approximately three holes on the golf course where golfers have created shortcuts off the cart paths, as there are at all courses. My rough guess is that we are talking about approximately 300 sq feet over a 55 acre area (2.4 million square feet) – or one hundredth of one percent. I can’t speak to the planting or maintenance of invasive species.
Ms. Dremman writes a lot about her personal observations and that of another “local environmentalist,” I am not exactly sure what that means – a trained professional or a concerned citizen. The issues cited by the Water Board, however, are primarily around Palo Alto’s lack of reporting.
As for the dollars in question, any additional costs to the city of Palo Alto will most likely pale in comparison to the millions of dollars of tax revenue generated by Baylands each year. Palo Alto is not in hot water.
I am not a resident of Palo Alto but I have every confidence the city will respond responsibly and appropriately to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
While I appreciate the exposure to environmental issues, I find this particular article to be exaggerated journalism and perhaps self-serving by the author.
“Startled a jackrabbit!” Seriously?
If you’ve ever played Baylands, there are jackrabbits, ground squirrels, geese, ducks, coots, and gulls all over that course – not just in the protected areas that are cordoned off, but on the fairways, on the cart paths, on the greens, on the driving range, even in the parking lot. HUNDREDS of them, maybe even THOUSANDS. Everywhere.
Yes, there are a few “cut throughs” that walkers have made and the course is actively trying to prevent this with new fences. But there isn’t much wildlife in those cut through areas because they are so narrow so close to active cart paths.