A scene from the field trip held Sept. 29 at the Los Alamos County Golf Course. Jeff Danner of Richardson-Danner Golf Course Architects and Deputy Public Works Director Eric Martinez, center, lead the tour, which showed participants first-hand where the different proposed changes to the course would occur. Photo by Kirsten Laskey/ladailypost.com

Jeff Danner of Richardson-Danner Golf Course Architects holds up a rendering of one of the design options for the Los Alamos County Golf Course during the tour Sept. 29. Photo by Kirsten Laskey/ladailypost.com

By KIRSTEN LASKEY
Los Alamos Daily Post
kirsten@ladailypost.com

As the design options for the Los Alamos County Golf Course get investigated during public meetings and showcased in various renderings and maps, County staff and their contractors worked to show first-hand where exactly these changes would occur and how they would affect the existing course and surrounding environment.

To answer these questions, a field trip around Los Alamos County Golf Course was held Sept. 29. Jeff Danner of Richardson-Danner Golf Course Architects led the excursion along with Deputy Public Works Director Eric Martinez.

Martinez said he felt the field trip was an excellent way of collecting feedback on the different design options for the golf course.

“I think it helps with engaging folks and to acquire input while stimulating new questions that reviewing maps alone may otherwise not produce,” he said. “You get a feel of what the options could look like, the impacts and scale. I think that’s extremely beneficial.”

During the tour, they touched on the different design options.

The design options are:

• Option A: This is the design option that the Parks and Recreation Board recommended Los Alamos County Council approve to fund during the board’s Aug. 11 meeting. In this option, the course would expand into 4.5 acres of the 20 acres in the southern portion of the course. A hiking trail along hole two would be realigned and there would be a piece of natural, wooded land between the fairway and realigned trail. The course would gain 120 yards, two to three greens would be added, 800 linear feet of hiking trails would be relocated, and an estimated 135 trees would be removed. The total estimated cost is approximately $3.5 million.
• Option B: The area by the maintenance shed and eastern portion of the golf course would be affected. The trail by hole four would be relocated for a short par 4 and holes five and six would be expanded into the eastern area. The course’s footprint would expand 2.8 acres into a 12-acre parcel. Four new greens would be added, 680 linear feet of trails would be relocated, and an estimated 84 trees would be removed. The estimated cost is approximately $3.9 million.
• Option C: This option focuses on the same 12 acres as Option B and also impacts 2.8 acres. There would be trail relocation work behind hole 3 and along hole 2. In the portion of the course next to Diamond Drive, new tees would be added for a par 3 to shift the green away from the road to address safety concerns and expand hole 5. Four new greens would be added, 680 linear feet of trail would be relocated, and an estimated 84 trees would be removed. The total estimated cost is approximately $4 million.
• Option D: This option only addresses the east area of the golf course and would impact 1.4 acres. Trail relocation would occur a little further east before connecting to the maintenance area. The course would be shortened slightly. However, Danner explained other areas of the course could be extended to make up the difference to result in no loss of course length. Three new greens would be added, 350 linear feet of trail would be relocated, and an estimated 42 trees would be removed. The total estimated cost is approximately $4 million.

The driving range is proposed to be expanded with all options precluding the need for safety netting. Danner said nets and support poles required would be rather tall, are expensive, require maintenance and replacement and pose a hazard to wildlife.

During the field trip, Danner noted that while the Parks and Recreation Board’s recommendation swayed away from the firm’s own top choices, there wasn’t any disagreement between the two entities. He added that the members of the Los Alamos Golf Association “overwhelmingly” favored option A, which some attendees disagreed with. While on the tour, some attendees felt more input on the different options was needed.

“I think they need to consider more broad public comments,” Georgia Strickfaden said. “When expanding the area into natural areas, I think it’s a problem – it’s something that requires care, and water and staff.”

Still, “I am totally in favor of taking care of the golf course,” Strickfaden said.

Others voiced their support for the course.

“I loved what they said about making this a destination golf course,” Jody Benson said.

Sheryl Nichols, a golfer and retired County employee, said she appreciated getting a tour of the course to see where the changes could occur.

“It’s helpful to see it in real life,” she said.

However, Nichols said she is unsupportive of all the options and felt that “it’s not a good use of money.”

Nichols said she would support an indoor driving range – which could be open year-round.

Resident Kevin Holsapple attended the meeting Sept. 29 and shared his thoughts with the Los Alamos Daily Post in an email.
From his perspective, no one is happy with the proposed changes, Holsapple said.

“A positive thing about the meeting was that informal conversations were started off-line … between golfers and citizens with concerns about the project,” he said. “I learned from golfers that they don’t like the options presented either and they have also been struggling to feel listened to. Nobody seemed satisfied by the way this thing is going.”

Hosapple said he would like to see options for solving the driving range safety concerns without increasing the golf course footprint into surrounding forest.

“There are such options, but the County seems fearful of evaluating the pros and cons of those options alongside the options they have developed,” he said. “Similarly, the golf community has developed an option that greatly reduces impacts on the adjacent forest, but it is not being presented either.”

County Council will make the final decision on which design option is selected. It is tentatively scheduled to appear on the council’s agenda in November.

Jeff Danner of Richardson-Danner Golf Course Architects, left, and Los Alamos County Deputy Public Works Director Eric Martinez hold up a rendering of one of the proposed design options during the golf course tour held Sept. 29. Photo by Kirsten Laskey/ladailypost.com