Since Bob asked, two or three Sat. participants confided that while the Shore is outstanding and enjoyable, they had a difficult time remembering the individual holes. I have this problem on many golf courses, but it is due to my memory more than the course. Nevertheless, I too couldn't remember the holes beyond #3 without consulting my scorecard and aerial (thanks Kalen).
This is not a criticism of the course or the architect, but the holes within sight of the Pacific seem to run together, perhaps overwhelmed by the surroundings. I didn't sense this at CPC, maybe because the assault on the senses (for a lack of a better term) comes more in bursts.
Beyond the obvious exceptions to #18 (which I didn't get to play this time), #11 is my least favorite hole. As others have noted, there's just too much going on around the green. Also, the elevated tee, jarring to my eye, might actually be improved by installing an escalator.
I didn't care for the creek/ditch crossing the tee shot on #12, the long par 5, though had I been playing the back tees, it probably wouldn't have been an issue. I also didn't like the hidden (to me, at least) creek to the right of #17.
In terms of playability, for my taste, the natives are too well maintained- irrigated, maybe even fertilized- resulting in lost balls (e.g. left on #1 by two or three in my group, #5 left, #8 left). Thinner, "whispier" natives would exact half stroke penalties, wouldn't discourage aggressive play, and facilitate faster play. For example, the risk/reward ratio of the short par 4, #5, would be more favorable if going marginally left (like I did) did not result in a lost ball.
I also found the umaintained sandy areas, well, unmaintained, to the extent that some deep footprints result in umplayable lies just off the fairway (I pulled my second shot on #6 15'-20' with a 3 Metal and ended up in one of the many 3"+ footprints at the front edge of the unmaintained area, two or three feet from the fairway). For a club of this caliber, I am surprised that the players didn't seem to bother with smoothing out their deep prints, even with their feet).
Having said all this, I think Shore is a great course. I don't remember Dunes well enough to say if it is a superior course, but if they're close, this would be a problem most 36-hole clubs would love to have. I do like Shore better than Pasatiempo, and if I didn't know better, I'd guess Shore, not Pasa, was designed by Dr. MacKenzie (easier to walk; more curvy, meandering, natural; better variety; par threes going in different directions; playable for more golfers).