NoCal courses. What to see first?

[ed_getka]

As Tom stated, I rely on the good graces of others to see the private tracks. Fortunately for me there are some unbelievably generous folks inhabiting this site. I focus on seeing the best architecture I can and pray to the golf gods for occasional strolls on hallowed ground. Thanks for all the feedback once again.

SGD,
  Meadow Club is excellent and will be even more so as Mike DeVries continues his restoration (with updates to account for todays game, while trying to retain Mackenzie's intent). Mike will be there in mid-May doing the next phase of the project. Any other recommendations are more than welcome.

[SGD]

Tom Huckaby:

From your posts, I know you love golf passionately, and as such, as Bobby Jones would say, we are "kindred souls".

But I have to say I'm saddened when fellow golfers, and non-golfers for that matter, place common fundamentals of private property and the right to associate, behind the desire (or need) to have access to something, such as a golf course.  

I don't have old money, so I have virtually no chance to join certain clubs, but I respect the memberships of these clubs to pick and choose who they want to join and play their courses.  I'll gladly accept invitations to play those clubs as a guest of members who are friends and acquaintances.  

I probably won't ever have the chance to play Augusta National, but that's okay, I've had and will have the opportunity to play lots of other great courses.  I respect the right of that membership to invite who they want as members and their guests.  Its part of our freedoms.

But we are ALL compromised when a self-appointed police officer, hiding behind the sham of being a golf writer, misuses his responsibility of being a reporter of news to assert a personal desire or agenda.  His "opinions", and that's what they are because he is not accurately reporting the various nuances and political interplay that led to the granting of the conditional use permit at CordeValle, if they burn so much in him, should be put on the Op/Ed page.  They won't appear there, of course, because the game of golf is not nearly as important as matters of life and death which unfortunately are all too real in this world following September 11 and recent events in the Middle East.

Finally, I want you to consider what the real meaning of a Conditional Use Permit is.  It is the government telling you, as an owner who bought and paid for private property, that you will be PERMITTED to USE your own land only if you meet certain CONDITIONS that are imposed on you by the Government, without compensation.  Think about those ramifications with respect to your own home and property, and reflect on how far we've gone away from the principles that founded this country.

I'm sorry for the commentary.  Let's get back to the fun stuff...

[eric shortz]

While agreeing with both SGD's recent post and most of what preceded, allow me to drop my ideas since I thought the overall numbers were awfully high.

Stanford (wonderful routing ad bunkering; better than Scarlet)
Granite Bay 7- (the best bunkering in the Sacaramento area with a routing no one gives it credit for)
Saddle Creek 6+ (Ideal Gold country property used well)
Wincester 6
Stevinson 5+ (can't get over how he botched the restoration at our club)
Twelve Bridges 5+ (too many awkward holes like 11 and 12)
Serrano 5
DG Legends 5
Ruby Hill 5
Cordevalle 5 + (This will annoy others, but many uphill shots break continuity of routing
Whitney Oaks 4 (Like Miller's others, unplayable for most)
The Ridge 4+ (both goofy and original holes)
Cinnabar (thoughts Goodale, Huckaby??)
DG Ranch  4
Sonoma 4 (wish I could have seen before RMG toyed with it)
Silverado 4
Hiddenbrooke 4 (Pretty weak, and still one of Palmer's better)
Fountaingroove  4 (Pretty weak, and still one of Robinson's better)
Poppy Ridge 4 (Another disappointing Rees Jones along the lines of Sandpines, Belle Terre and Talamore)
Eagle Ridge (see Whitney Oaks)
Coyote Creek 4 (What was Nicklaus thinking??)
Sea Ranch 4 (new nine is an enviro nightmare)
Bodgega (For new nine, see below)
StoneTree 3 (should never have been built)
Roddy Ranch 3 (should never have been built, but REALLY good uphill holes???
The Bridges  3 (see directly above)

As for others, cannot wait to see a restored Meadow C (could it finally be along the lines of Valley C), the renovated Cal C, or Mayacama.  

On a final note, I would put Pasa above all of the above.

See you boys on Saturday.

eric

[THuckaby2]

SGD:

I am beyond apothetic when it comes to politics.  Your arguments make great sense to me.  I do know Barry Witt at least a little, however, and I don't find he has any axe to grind here, nor did I have any reason to believe until reading your post that he was reporting any part of this inaccurately.

There are issues here beyond the right of free association and the conditional use permit.  Hell, it's pretty obvious that people ought to be able to do what they want, when they want to do it, with their private land.

But this was indeed open space, wasn't it?

Such is rapidly diminishing around our area... Is it sound policy for the people to allow whoever wants to purchase land to just do so, buy it all up, do whatever they want with it, leave us with no open space?  How would you feel if this were a nuclear waste dump and not a golf course?

That's the crux of this.  The owners of Cordevalle receive a Conditional Use Permit because they are taking open space.  Looking at it that way, the conditions imposed on them don't appear wrong to me at all.

I am VERY naive about these things.  Hell yes I respect private clubs and they can indeed do whatever they want.  I've been to so many and met so many great people who are members... and if I had the financial means, I'd join one in a heartbeat and damn right I'd want no governmental interference.

But if I am gonna purchase open space land near a large urban area, I'm gonna be prepared to deal with what the government says.  That doesn't seem unfair to me at all.

Hey, I'm a golfer.  Politics I could care less about.  Breaking promises though to me just doesn't ever sound right.  If Barry has this wrong, please do tell, in what way... if you don't want to post here, feel free to send me a private message or email.  I'll set Barry straight myself.

TH
tom.huckaby@clorox.com

[THuckaby2]

Eric:  can't argue with much of that at all.  You have them in just about the order I'd put them.  I'm not very good with "Doak scale" numbers, I always forget what each means... so as for high or low, hell I trust ya.  Relative to a lil ole club you frequent, these ALL suck anyway...

TH

[SGD]

Tom Huckaby:

Thanks for your reply.

What needs to be clarified is that the developer of CordeValle didn't buy or "take" open space to build their golf course.  Rather, they bought with their own money (and lots of it) 1700+ acres of privately-owned land, called the Hayes Ranch, from the citizen owner.

After having bought the private property, they sought to develop their own private property.  They needed County permission.  Their original plans, as I understand it, were to develop a housing development (700 units I'm told) with a golf course.  They were rejected because it was "growth inducing".  

Finally, after many years and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on hearings and hearing fees, studies and reports, and experts, and, oh yes, paying interest on debt for the note on the land and paying property taxes, the developer of CordeValle DEEDED IN PERPETUITY TO THE COUNTY ALMOST 1500 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE in order to develop the remaining 250 +/- acres of the parcel for a golf course, club villas, and, I think, 35 lots for homes off the golf course.  The developer, of course, was not compensated for his giving away 1500 acres of land to the County.

Then, after all this, the County decided that (a) we've stopped you from using your land as you wish as a housing development; (b) we've compelled you to give up 1500 acres of your land (which you paid for) to provide open space; and (c) you've complied with all environmental regulations in order to use the remaining portion of your property; and now...we're going to tell you at the last minute who should use and how they should use your remaining 20% of property.

Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, Tom, you can't set this particular writer straight, because he doesn't want to be set straight; he's smarter than you and me and everybody else.  He's the media - the ultimate source of truth and all that's right.

The best way to put this into perspective, I believe, is to read the many golf writers who love the game of golf, its courses, its players, its tournaments, its history, and ignore the handful of bad apples.  Continue to read and contribute to GCA, which is a great forum for positive influence on golf.  After all, the Mercury News is irrelevant for golf coverage - the newspaper of the country's ninth largest city didn't even send a beat writer to The Masters, they used the Los Angeles Times coverage.

[THuckaby2]

SGD:

Belittling my home newspaper is gonna go over big with me!  

Just kidding.  I could care less about how the SJ Merc works and why.  And yes, when it comes to learning about golf, I do not turn to the SJ Merc or any newspaper, for that matter.  Unfortunately though, all I know about the Cordevalle dealings has come from that source.  I truly didn't care about it enough to investigate further... so I am sincerely grateful you set forth for me here how this went down.  Again, I am trusting you, even though I don't know who you are... so bear with me here.  Naive golfer, that's me.

But imn any case, thanks again for setting forth how this went down.  Reading this set of facts, it sure seems like the developer bent over backwards to satisfy the country requirements.  I'd be pissed if I were them also.

Just answer me one thing:  did they, or did they not, agree to a covenant stating a certain percentage of play was to be for the public?

If they did, they are now breaking their promise.

Now don't get me wrong - I can get on Cordevalle if I want to, I've had several invitations.  This is NOT self-interest talking here.  

I just want to know if they made that promise or not.

And if they did, be it "unfair" or not, well... hiding it, lying about it, couching it under $275 green fees just doesn't seem right to me either.

Naive me, I always thought two wrongs don't make a right.

TH

[SGD]

Tom:

I don't work for the developer of CordeValle or the County, so I didn't attend the public hearings and I have not reviewed the CUP.

My understanding is that there is some allowance for public access, which from what I've read and been told by reliable sources the club believed would be covered by unaccompanied guest play (they have a very liberal guest policy) and the public staying at the villas.  As with many other government regs and rulings, there can be legitimate interpretation issues on both sides.  We'll see how it plays out.

My curiousity is what motivated Mr. Witt to become so vociferous in his pursuit of this issue (he even has weekly "CordeValle Update" sections in his column)?  The tone of "keep those cards and letters coming to the Planning Commission" is bizarre.  Can you shed some light?

[THuckaby2]

SGD:  I didn't think you did work for any of these entities.  Hell, I trust you know what you're talking about.  Just wanted to point out that "trust" re these facts is involved here.  I'm just an average joe golfer, I don't profess to know what went on at all myself.  But I believe you do know.

Barry Witt has only been doing that golf column for a relatively short time - less than a year, I think.  In that time, he has taken on the persona of the "voice/advocate of the public course golfer."  As an attention-getting device, you gotta admit that's not a bad stance to take - there are far more public course players reading the Merc than private, just because there are far more public course players PERIOD.

So that's why he's "after" Cordevalle, I think.  I have no real insight into this, I don't know Barry that well - that's just my take.

All this being said, it seems a given that the club believed it's public access promise was going to be satisfied by guests of members and people staying at the villas.  The question here is what percentage did they agree to? If it's sixty percent, as Barry reports, than it's pretty silly to think that would be met by what they say.

I honestly don't know what percentage they agreed to - I just had no reason to disbelieve Barry.

And if it is 60%, and they did agree to it, then they are indeed being at the very least "deceitful" and my feeling is they ought to just come clean and renegotiate with the county.  

Again, this begs the question over whether forcing the club to make this promise is fair or not - hell, we can easily agree that it isn't.  But if they made the promise, they have to live with it, fairly.

Make sense?

Again, I have no axe to grind here one way or the other...

TH

ps - Cordevalle might be wise to take the stance Rocke Garcia did re Boulder Ridge - just admit that he did screw the county, the county was stupid not to put a covenant like this in his CUP, tell Barry to lump it - all of which is apparently exactly what he did!  While this does kinda suck that what was promised at one point to be a public course exists one mile from my house, I hold nothing against Rocke and in a way admire him for what he pulled off!  You see no further mention of Boulder Ridge in Barry's columns, do ya?

[SGD]

Tom:

All fair points and I respect your opinions.

One factual point, and I'm not sure if it establishes anything anyway, but the developer of CordeValle also developed Estancia in Scottsdale, which has a very restricted access policy as opposed to CordeValle, e.g., no one plays unless physically accompanied by a member.  I was told that 55% of the play at Estancia was non-member play (accompanied guests).  

I gotta tell you that number surprised me.  Assuming its accurate and consistent, it's not difficult to think that CordeValle believed it would meet the 60% number adding unaccompanied guest play and guests at the Villas to the mix.

[THuckaby2]

SGD - fair enough.  I don't know the workings of either Estancia or Cordevalle, but what I thought Cordevalle promised was not that 60% of play each day was gonna be from the public, but 60% of ALL TEE TIMES would be made available to the public.

I can't see how they ever thought that would happen with unaccompanied guests plus villa residents.  60% of tee time every day? That sure seems like a lot to me.

I'm just guessing here, I freely admit.  One way or the other, I hope you can understand Barry's motivations, and how public course golfers feel about the whole thing.

Please realize also Barry reads this DG.  I'd love it if he would speak for himself here.  Barry?

TH

[John_Sheehan]

Ed-
Just my 2 cents worth here. I had a last minute opportunity to get out and play Roddy Ranch today in 30 mph winds.

For the life of me, given what I perceive to be the design features that are valued by most people on this site, I cannot believe that some folks here rate the course so low.  I have to respectfully disagree - if for no other reason than IMHO, this is exactly the kind of strategic course I want to see more of.  I would like to see these guys succeed, because they have created a course I could play every day, and never tire of.

This last time make my fifth time around that course - and the more I play it the more I like it, the more I find to appreciate there and the more fun it gets.

First, it is one beautifully strategic golf course.  No eye candy, no "framing."  Every bunker and every hazard provides a strategic element to the course.  If it is there - you have to deal with it, or accept a more difficult follow-up shot.  If you challenge it, and succeed, you are rewarded.

On a piece of property that was not perfect, the architect has done one helluva job with the routing, and fitting the holes on the land to utilize the natural features.  He has created a very memorable, enjoyable golf course.

Also, unlike so many American courses, Roddy is intentionally maintained to play hard and fast.  Given the windy conditions today, it was an absolute treat to be able to play running shots that we normally only see on the telecasts of the Open.  One example: #17, par 3, downhill, downwind, 176 yards - I played a nine iron short of the green and watched it bounce and run to the middle of the green.  I don't know what courses most here play - but on most of the courses I get to play, that shot would have plugged in the water-soaked area short of the green.  Roddy provides the player options on every shot on every hole.

I stood on the greens and looked back on the fairways, and just marvelled at the thoughtful design - especially the use of fairway bunkers and natural contours.  Every time I have played there, I have noticed some new feature that I missed the other times.  This time on number 10, a par 5, dog-leg left Cape hole, I noticed (probably because it was one of the few times I have hit that fairway   ),a contoured ridge in the landing area that allows you to sling your shot along the ground in the direction of the hole, a "ground hook" if you will.

And the course is full of these subtle design features.

I think it is a terrific course, with great variety of risk/reward holes.  I have heard it said that par fives are some of the most difficult holes to design.  Roddy has a set of par fives that are all memorable, and completely different.  Joe Bob sez:  Check it Out! - one of the best new courses that has been built in our area in a long time.  Just my opinion.

[Robert]

These are fun:
Whitehawk Ranch and the Dragon in the Tahoe area:

www.golfcalifornia.com

http://www.travelgolf.com/departments/authorarchives/holland.htm

http://www.golfcalifornia.com/dragon1.htm

http://www.golfcalifornia.com/holland90.htm