News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« on: August 18, 2006, 11:08:28 PM »
Not long ago I played a golf course with an abundance of ESA's.

So many that they interfered with the design, strategy and play of the golf course.

Strangely, some of these ESA's were confined to the extended interior lines of the fairway.

They didn't exist beyond the corridors of play.

So, my question is, why couldn't these areas be remediated ?

Why couldn't the ESA's have been established outside of the corridors of play ?

This way, there would be no incursions into these areas by golfers ignoring the entry prohibition, they wouldn't interfere with or impede the architectural design of the golf course and play would be away from them.

Wetlands are remediated, why not ESA's.

Isn't remediation a viable if not a preferable alternative ?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2006, 05:58:06 AM »
Patrick:

In 25 courses we have built there is only one designated ESA -- a small patch of dunes to the right of the first green at Pacific Dunes, which has a bunch of silver phacelia growing in it.  We couldn't grass the area, and it was going to get too footprinted up (and eventually eroded) if we allowed people to dig in and play.

That's the only example from my files because normally, if there is an environmental concern that would create an unplayable situation, I will stay the heck away from it in my routing.  Going near it could add years to the permit process and undermine the chances of the course even being built.

Nevertheless, if there is an environmental area within the golf course, everyone should respect it.  "Mitigation" is not always feasible as it is sometimes difficult for men to reproduce overnight what it took Nature a long time to create.

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2006, 08:40:46 AM »
maybe the golf course you played shouldn't have been built Patrick!
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2006, 09:11:33 AM »
Patrick, I doubt it.

Taking the poster child for ESA's, Spanish Bay, as an example. It always struck me as odd, that when the course first opened, there were no ESA's.

This leads me to believe that green tipped hazard stakes were a concoction of management. Attempting to either speed play or keep the sand in place.

Either way, if the esa's were truely off limits, the logo balls would be knee deep.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2006, 10:39:21 AM »

maybe the golf course you played shouldn't have been built Patrick!


Paul,

Would you include NGLA and Seminole in that category ?

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2006, 10:56:25 AM »
Adam,

What happens if you say "To hell with it, that's a brand new ProV1 and I'm going to retrieve it." Do they call the cops?

Bob

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2006, 12:19:24 PM »
Adam,
Spanish Bay was loaded with ESA's. That's one of the reasons why it's use as a sand quarry was halted.

I have to dig it up, but I have a story by Mark Soltau regarding the building of Spanish Bay, during the building of Spanish Bay and it gets into just how difficult it was to get the place built because of Eco concerns.

Whenever I hear of ridiculous ESA's, I can't help to think of my beloved pariah of a golf course--less then 500 yards from where I type this--La Habra-Westridge. (aka LH-Worstridge)

Between each fairway built rice paddy-like into the steep hills of what was once Chevron's National Training and Research Center are some of the most ridiculous eco-areas which come into play on every hole because the design of the course on the side of this huge hill--literally presents a push or pull lie on most every tee. These areas, which presently are close to dead because the three different owners of the course in it's oh-so-brief lifetime--five years, don't have the money to maintain them, let alone maintain the course for the green fee they charge-all because of the way the course was designed.

The place is a literal ghost town that survives on corporate outings and the success of its clubhouse restaurant business, where hopefully the people are drunk enough not to notice.

Now I don't neccessary fault the designer, more the developer for coming up with a land use plan that gave not one decent area suitable for golf on the entire parcel. I do however fault the designer for even wanting to get involved with something so ridiculous. This is for the most part tee to green--all 18 holes--the worst golf course ever built, albeit a dangerous one at that.

There is even talk about how redevelopment into housing might take part in this. I look for that to happen soon.

The purpose of this is to hilight how ESA's controlled a lot of where the golf course went. The developer and builder, Environmental Golf, wanted to use this as a showcase of being an eco-developer of golf courses, hence the ridiculous name. With-in three years of spending millions of developing several golf properties, they were out of the golf course development business. (however they successfully remain in the golf course maintenance business, now known as Valley Crest)

Below is the Google Earth photo looking from the East towards the West. No, tit isn't your eyes, those are the roof tops of a shopping center down below, which those rooftops can be seen from most anywhere on the front nine and par ot the back nine. I'm sure the birds and orther wildlife that abounds on the site love that.

I've got some pretty bizarre ideas of what they could have created here and maybe even created a magnificent wildlife area in the process, but I won't bore any of you with it. No use crying over dead ducks.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2006, 12:20:48 PM by Tommy Naccarato »

Doug Ralston

Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2006, 01:43:59 PM »
""Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?""

Yes!

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2006, 03:55:56 PM »
""Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?""

Yes!


WHY ?

Examine Tommy's photo and tell me why ESA's on that golf course are important ?


Tommy,

Why weren't ESA's preserved when the buildings and parking lot in the mall were created ?

Why weren't ESA's preserved when the homes and streets were created ?

Why are golf courses singled out ?
[/color]


Steve Curry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2006, 04:11:32 PM »
Pat,

I think they see them as poor excuses to build through these areas.  They don't want golf.

Steve

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2006, 05:36:16 PM »

maybe the golf course you played shouldn't have been built Patrick!


Paul,

Would you include NGLA and Seminole in that category ?


I didn't say they should be Patrick
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are ESA's really that important to environmentalists ?
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2006, 08:03:20 PM »
Pat,
You bring up excellent points. All of them.

There is little doubt somewhere down the line Golf got a really bad reputation for polluting the environment. Bad enough that common sense meant that a concrete & asphalt was a better environment then grass, plants, bushes and trees.

Later on, I'll try to get done here and get up to the 1st tee/driving range area and get a photo and post it. It's pathetic, but I'll be more then happy to post it.

But to answer your points:

Where the current mall is located, was a combination of multistructured parking and buildings, some of them two, three or four stories tall. What was demolished was more of a campus-like facility. Since this was a major redevelopment, including the building of the houses and golf course on land that had never been developed It was obvious that prime land right on the street would go to commercial development. What I don't understand, or simply can't fathom is why all of us live in a society that can't picture, let alone understand the importance of creating something original and unique. By that I mean to suggest the merging of the three entities. Housing, Commercial, Recreation and Natural Habitat and making them all harmonious with one another. it seems to work in the Home of Golf, and I see no reason why it couldn't have worked here either, mind you it's a place where two major thoroughfares meet--Beach Blvd. and Imperial Highway. Both highways can take you to the Pacific Ocean, while one of them takes you directly to LAX.

But to get more direct to the point, it took over two years to reshape the hillside into terraces for golf holes, or at least the basis for creating the homesites and golf holes. I can't remeber the exact figure, but the amount of earth moved to create this could be described as obscene. It destoryed land that should have been deemed ESA-protected. The permitting process was fast & sleek.

Where you really hit on the point Pat is where you ask why ESA's weren't preserved when the homes & streets were created.

My feeling on this is that it didn't even come into question, let alone was ever discussed--in terms of where everything went. However if you look due south of the housing, which would be the left side of the image, you can see these beautiful hills. those are the Western most portion of the Coyote Hills. At one time you could hear the coyotes crying at night. Further south of that is Los Coyotes Country Club, which partially rests on the famed McColl Toxic Waste Dump site, widely regarded as the site that created the term, "superfund." So these hills have been destroyed for years, both ruthlessly and needlessly.

Who was responsible?

Why of course, Standard Oil, which is now known as Chevron.


Currently the Coyote Hills is going through further battles, as developers, even in a market that is falling faster then a Led Zepplin to develop the last remaining hills, which from my viewpoint, given the amount of traffic we have here already, makes about as much sense as a bottomless boat. The infrastructure of the sewers, major energy concerns, roads schools and other essentials for sustaining life are pretty much taxed to their limits. However, there is talk of taking the site for the former Super K and splitting it up into more commercial properties, whcih I view as only a positive. We need more DVD/Video rental stores, a Staples Center to accomodate the Office Max and Office Depot, as well as another Rite Aid and Osco Pharmacies. The two down the street are filled-up to their limit in orders, drugging the people into more delusion.

For more information:
http://www.coyotehills.org/

While the fight is more a city of Fullerton battle, this site is literally a 1/4 of a mile down the road.


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back