Pebble Beach II - Should it be built? By whom?

[Joe Perches]

The Los Angeles Times has an article today about the Pebble Beach Company and its effort to build another golf course in Monterey through the Del Monte forest.

LA Times article

The Monterey pine forest is relatively scarce now and I imagine any course should be built with a minimum of tree removal.  if the course should be built, who would be the best designer?  Who routes best through trees?

[ed_getka]

I don't think it should be built. Undoubtedly if it does, Fazio, Jones, or Nicklaus would be the choice of the Pebble Beach people for the marketing angle.
   I don't know of an architect with a particular skill for routing in trees.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:  There isn't much point in debating "who would be the best designer" on this board, you'll just hear all the usual choices.  And none of them will matter because the project is Tom Fazio's if it happens.

[ed_getka]

Tom,
   Why Fazio? His name is the one I've always heard associated with the potential project. I presume it's the bankable name for marketing.

[Joe Perches]

the project is Tom Fazio's if it happens.

I didn't know the long history of the project.

http://www.golfcalifornia.com/pebble5.htm

I seem to be unable to find any preliminary routing or drawings of this proposed course.

The California Coastal Commission doesn't seem to have any information available other than "new golf course on 211 acres".  For instance: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/recap3/documents/TGrovtoMCO-10.23.00-Attach2.pdf

Does anyone have any links to Fazio's preliminary drawings or routings?

[Joel_Stewart]

18,000 trees seems like a lot?  The property sits to the right of the 5th hole of Cypress Point streching to the equestrian facility.  I spoke a few years ago to one of the limited partners about trying to get a group together and get Fazio removed but he wouldn't have any part of it.   The general partners (Eastwood, Palmer, Ferris and Ueberoth) control the operation and everyone else is just in for the free golf and the rubbing of the shoulders with the other partners.

Should be an interesting meeting on Wednesday.

[ed_getka]

Joe,
   I don't know that there is anything down on paper at this point routing-wise. I have been hearing things over the past few years and it always seemed like Fazio was attached to it. I think many didn't expect to get past the Coastal Commission, so it hasn't been a hot issue.

[Eric Johnson]

the project is Tom Fazio's if it happens.

I seem to be unable to find any preliminary routing or drawings of this proposed course.

Does anyone have any links to Fazio's preliminary drawings or routings?

If I had a decent map of the property between Spyglass-Cypress Point and Pebble Beach, I could probably remember 14 to 15 holes.  

I saw a total of three different routings in 1996-97.  There were so many unsettled factors (proposed housing, where to start-finish, etc.) influencing the routing that it must have changed since 1996.  Maybe not, PBCo. hasn't received approval for the project yet have they?

[Bob_Huntley]

18,000 trees seems like a lot?  The property sits to the right of the 5th hole of Cypress Point streching to the equestrian facility.  I spoke a few years ago to one of the limited partners about trying to get a group together and get Fazio removed but he wouldn't have any part of it.   The general partners (Eastwood, Palmer, Ferris and Ueberoth) control the operation and everyone else is just in for the free golf and the rubbing of the shoulders with the other partners.

Should be an interesting meeting on Wednesday.

Joel,

It is my understanding that the "Free Golf" is only offered at the Partners Tooniment, but they pay at other times.

Can you verify this?

Bob

[Steve_Roths]

Bob - you are correct.  I just called a friend who was part of that deal.

[James Bennett]

The Monterey pine forest is relatively scarce now and I imagine any course should be built with a minimum of tree removal.  if the course should be built, who would be the best designer?  Who routes best through trees?

My mind went off at a tangent (as it often does) and it went to Seth Raynor.  One of the courses that I really enjoyed during my recent visit was MPCC Dunes (originally a Raynor course), and obviously Cypress Point (whose routing pedigree is often debated here).  Was Raynor one of the better architects when it came to dealing with trees?  My Raynor experience unfortunately is limited to these sites, both of which handle the use of coast, dunes and forest in a delightful way.

And, given that our views amount to nought on this topic, then Seth Raynor is as valid a suggestion for Pebble Beach II as we could make.

[Joel_Stewart]

Joel,

It is my understanding that the "Free Golf" is only offered at the Partners Tooniment, but they pay at other times.

Can you verify this?

Bob

I can't verify it for the absoloute truth but they do have partner meetings I believe twice a year which have 2 or 3 rounds of golf involved and know that 9am and 9:15 every morning are reserved for partners.  Furthermore, quite a few of the partners are members at CPC which also comes into play.   Lastly, its well known that the partners somehow rotate invitations to the AT&T, so you get a nice invitation to that every other year or so.

[Lou_Duran]

Joel,

I don't play in that league, but it would seem to me that to be a partner or investor one would have to be financially secure and lead a lifestyle which abhors any suggestion of pinching pennies.  Could it be that most of these well-heeled folks actually value Fazio's work and the instant market credibility it earns?

Ed,

Why shouldn't it be built?  When tourists, many non-golfers, go through the 20some mile drive, do they stop and look at the forest and raw land, or do they seem to congregate at the golf courses?  Are there not deer and other critters in sufficient numbers in and around the homes and courses?

Finding an architect who can route through trees and minimize the impact on the environment should be the easiest part.  Overcoming the anti-golf, zero-development mentality will be by far the greatest impediment.

Come to think of it, based on a conversation I had with the superintendent at Spanish Bay last year regarding the regulatory gymnastics he has to go through just to maintain his course, perhaps I should agree with Ed.  I guess the construction jobs, 30 - 50+ new permanent positions, and the taxes generated from the sales revenue are not siginifcant enough for the public decision makers.

[ed_getka]

Lou,
   I simply don't think it would add much to the golf experience on the peninsula. Look at Pinehurst, how many of those courses there are well-regarded? I'm sure they get plenty of play, but if you are not going above what already exists out there than why build another course, especially when golf's future doesn't look particularly healthy. Golfers already have Pebble, Spy, Spanish Bay, Pac Grove, Ft Ord, Poppy Hills that are open to the public. I am not intimately familiar with the land in the woods there (other than camping there during the '92 Open ), but I can't imagine there would be a great course laying out there waiting to be discovered.
   My opinion on this has nothing to do with tree-hugging. If I had to choose between a mediocre golf course or housing, I would choose the golf course. Otherwise I'm happy to see trees and horse trails in there.

[Nick Church]

If you'll indulge me (especially as my first post), my two cents:

I have always enjoyed courses with a fair amount (if not an abundance of) buffer zone between course and development (ie, houses).  Thus a course carved into the Del Monte forest is very appealing to the golfer in me.  That's said realizing I may get the chance to play the course once or twice at most.

Second, I believe that private land owners have the right to develop the land.  Certainly with certain restraint and consideration for the unique social & ecological surroundings each community holds (whether it's Monterey, CA or Louisville, KY is no matter).  Although I tend to be cynical in most subjects, I somehow believe that few developers (possibly read "businesses") are wasting extra energy with specific attempts to destroy resources (respective to their chosen markets).

If given the opportunity, I would approach a meeting with the Pebble Beach Co. &  its principals with an open mind.  I would believe (until proven otherwise) that while they (PBC) are certainly looking to fiscally take advantage of their asset through development, that they remain good stewards as members of the same community that their opponents believe they've set out to decimate.

Thanks for bearing with me.... maybe I was a little ambitious for my first post.

PS
Some background: the first time I ever picked up a golf ball was while living at Fort Ord, CA in the 1980s.  With Bayonet & Blackhorse as my earliest (& happiest) golfing memories, I have a soft spot for Monterey and its golfing legacy.

[Lou_Duran]

Nick,

Very reasonable post.  Be careful lest you be tarred and feathered by those who are quite free with others' property and money.

Ed,

Your preference for trees and horse trails is understandable.  Perhaps you and others of a similar mindset can put your pennies together and write the PBC a check for the value of that land.

As to mediocre golf, boy you must be really spoiled.  There is not a course among those you mentioned that can be so described.  Come to Texas and/or Orange County and I'll show you mediocre.

BTW, golf as a business is highly local.  From my few visits to the Penninsula, the market seems to be doing quite well.  Do you really think that Eastwood and his boys would make such a large investment just to piss off the tree huggers?  These are guys who are very successful and not known to throw money away just to make a point.

Give the project to Doak, C & C, or Fazio and I would bet you a stuffed spotted owl that mediocre won't be used as an adjective to describe it.  

[David_Tepper]

According to an article in today's SF Chronicle (www.sfgate.com), the developer of the course (Eastwood's group) has withdrawn their plan for the course. Their intention is to "refine and resubmit"  a plan for the course at a future date.  

[Nick Church]

Reading the article, it sounds as if previous compromises weren't included in the submitted proposal.  Indicates that revisions will include these compromises so that it stands a better chance of meeting approval of the commission.

Another delay, but most likely expected and standard for development, especially in coastal areas.

[Bob_Huntley]

Believe me there is much local opposition to this project.

How the California Coastal Commission achieved such enormous powers beyond their remit to protect the COAST is beyond me.

When viewing the mess in Malibu on Pacific Coast Highway there was a move to safeguard the coastline from the ravages of property development. The public voted for the formation of the CCC. However, it wasn't long before they started claiming jurisdiction over the next thousand yards from the coast and an even more egregious claim to go back inland to watershed land.

Bob

[ed_getka]

Lou,
   I was not implying that the courses I listed were mediocre. I was saying that a course built on the property in question would be unlikely to be better than most of the courses I listed. Thus, why build a golf course that isn't going to be better than what already exists. Particularly given what golf's future prospects seem to be. BTW, I am beyond spoiled when it comes to golf, and given the number of rounds of golf I get in I try to make the most of them. I never forget for one minute that I am the fortunate recipient of the generosity of others.