tMo
By Tom Modugno
You may have heard that the in order to satisfy the State Mandate to build more houses, Joan Hartman and the County of Santa Barbara have decided to build up to 1,000 new houses right on the border of the City of Goleta.
This will satisfy the county’s requirements while allowing Goleta to deal with all the negative impacts. Even if you don’t golf, saving Glen Annie Golf Course instead of converting it into housing units offers significant environmental, economic, and community benefits that outweigh the potential gains from development.
1. Environmental Preservation:
Glen Annie Golf Course is a vital green space that contributes to local biodiversity, provides a habitat for wildlife, and helps mitigate the urban heat island effect. It serves as a buffer against pollution by absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. Replacing this green space with housing would lead to increased air pollution, heat retention from construction materials, and stormwater runoff, negatively impacting the local environment. In a time when the climate crisis is becoming more urgent, protecting such spaces is crucial for long-term sustainability.
2. Recreational and Community Value:
Glen Annie is not just a golf course but a community hub that offers recreational opportunities, promotes physical activity, and fosters social interaction. Golf courses often serve as spaces for relaxation, events, and gatherings, attracting residents and tourists alike. Losing this amenity would deprive the community of a valuable recreational asset, especially in a region like Santa Barbara, where outdoor activities are central to the lifestyle and local culture.
3. Economic Contribution:
The golf course draws golfers, visitors, and tourists who contribute to the local economy by spending on dining, lodging, and retail. The scenic nature of the golf course enhances the value of surrounding properties, making it an important economic driver. Building 1,000 housing units might provide short-term construction jobs, but in the long run, the economic benefits of a thriving golf course, combined with tourism and community events, offer more sustainable financial returns to the city and surrounding businesses.
4. Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns:
Developing all these new housing units will put a considerable strain on local infrastructure. Roads, schools, and utilities would be overburdened by such an influx of residents, exacerbating traffic congestion and stretching public services thin. The construction of new housing also requires significant investment in infrastructure upgrades, which could disrupt the area and lead to additional costs for taxpayers.
5. Balance Between Development and Conservation:
While housing is essential, particularly in California, there needs to be a balanced approach to urban planning. Instead of building on Glen Annie Golf Course, the county should explore other areas for residential development that don’t involve sacrificing green spaces. Responsible urban growth can happen without compromising the environmental and recreational assets that improve the quality of life for current and future residents.
Saving Glen Annie Golf Course aligns with long-term sustainability goals, preserves an important community and recreational space, and protects the local environment from further degradation. While housing development is important, it should not come at the cost of irreplaceable green spaces that are essential for the well-being of the community and the health of the ecosystem.
This isn’t just losing a golf course, it is much more. If you agree, please sign and share this petition and let’s at least try to get the politicians to listen to us!
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/263/403/541/dont-build-on-glen-annie-golf-course/
Keep Goleta the Good Land!
I am glad to see people participating in citizen-led community efforts and applaud their right to gather support from like minded people.
I am not by any means enthusiastic about all new housing projects, but it’s undeniable that we need more affordable housing here, emphasis on affordable. This is a problem that will be very difficult to solve given our physical limitations and the strong tendency to let developers’ greed guide decisions. The petitioners make some valid observations about traffic concerns and they are right to point out the need for balance.
However I will not be signing a petition to save a golf course. I think its environmental benefits are wildly overstated and the community benefits only exist within a small, exclusive group. The needs of local golfers are more than adequately met already. A more open community park space that included habitat restoration efforts would be far superior.
Kirk, the cause of the housing crisis is Short vacation Term Rentals (STRs). Currently 13% of California’s housing accommodations are used for STRs
To calculate the number of homes used for short-term vacation rentals in California, we need the total number of housing units in the state. As of 2023, California has approximately 14.2 million housing units.
Given that 13% of these are used for short-term vacation rentals, we can calculate the number as follows:
Number of short-term rentals=0.13×14,200,000=1,846,000
So, there are about 1,846,000 homes in California used for short-term vacation rentals the amount the State is short of housing. We need not rezone prime ag at Glen Annie or San Marcos Growers to and bulldoze for high density housing.
What we do need is to vote for Supervisors who can enforce Zoning laws, enforcing residential zoned properties not be used for commercial use. This whole high density housing is self inflicted by lack of enforcement. There are 1,846,000 Million homes used for STRs that would cover housing needs. This is a fact. The housing mandate is an abuse of power.
High density doesn’t work…look at Vancouver BC…with all the high density and construction they still have a housing crisis, they also have high crime, air pollution, noise pollution, traffic congestion…locals hate what has happened to the city. In the USA, The projects failed. Who in their right mind believes crowding thousands of people into a small area is healthy?
The Supervisors , Governor, State talk about equality, but they are building social classes. The rich with multiple acreage of protected open space Montecito, Hope Ranch, Santa Ynez and then the other class crowed, congested , polluted air and noise, traffic congested expected to ride public transport , bikes, walk while the rich move freely in the vehicles, planes, helicopters., private drivers ….These 15 minute cites are nothing more than controlled and segregated societies, look at history.
Hope Ranch Golf Course would be ideal for high density housing for Teachers, firefighters, doctors and Nurses. The Nurses and Doctors would be so close to the hospital they could ride their bikes, walk or take a short electric bus ride.. Fire fires have easy access to the 101 and teaches are close to multiple school. All could ride their bikes or take a 5 minute bus ride to grocery stores, and shopping. I think it’s a much better spot to place 3000 -4000 units. Lots of open space, can horse back ride, go to the beach, cycle etc… this would avoid shutting down prime ag At Glen Annie and San Marcos growers for organic food production. This is a much better sustainable plan. I think the residents doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters would prefer the location….
SUN – that is a great idea! Why does Goleta always have to take the brunt of SB/Montecito? Our beach took their toxic mud, now they want us to take the housing pains as well?
Why hasn’t Hope Ranch or Montecito been ever considered for this housing mandate? Honestly, why? We all know the answer.
This would also allow for Supervisors to meet their State, County and local laws and ordinances to Protect Agriculture and food security. It’s a win win !
Or they could simply enforce zoning laws and make available the 1 million 846 thousand housing units operating as STRs….if they are worried about tourism convert vacant large commercial buildings into mix use housing, shopping and hotel for STRs…again win win and sustainable…
KIRK – the needs of the wealthy local golfers, maybe. This is an affordable community course, used daily by hundreds of local working class folks in West Goleta. It provides a venue for countless beautiful events, jobs for many local teens and adults and a thriving ecosystem for local wildlife. An open park space would be great, but the owners are not about providing free land.
I’d ask you to reconsider signing to support not just a golf course, but preventing development of this great land. Until we can convince the owners to donate the land to a community park, let’s go with the next best thing.
I appreciate the response, but no thank you. Can a person go and explore the property if they’re not a golfer? Could I go hang out with my binoculars and watch birds, or do some trail running on the fairways? I honestly don’t know the answer to that but I’ve never seen a course where one could. I respect your interest in the project, I think you and Mr. Modugno have only good intentions for all, and it would be foolish of me to deny the economic impetus, including local jobs. I just don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze. It’s a pretty big piece of land and ever since it was lemon orchards it’s been dominated, some might say “abused” by human economic interests.
We always have to balance our interests as a community when we make land use decisions. There are, as you and tMo suggest tradeoffs to the golf course and a different set of tradeoffs for a housing project. It’s being presented as a binary choice, and maybe to some degree it is. Unlike our presidential election, however, I’d prefer a “third party” choice and I can’t really support either one. The choice of either houses or golf course just seems like a colossal failure of imagination.
Keep the restaurant & bar, maybe put in other human entertainment features near it. But please rip up the greens, stop watering fairways, and plant more trees and shrubs, and let managed healing of the land begin. It’s gonna take a good long while, so we should start asap. Those are my two cents, and I’ll shut up now.
KIRK – I completely respect your thoughts on this and I agree. Unfortunately though, as you point out, it really is a binary choice. We really don’t have a say in what this land is used for, it’s up to a private owner (group of owners). All we as a community can really (not likely though) do, is to hope for the County to reverse their zoning decision. Or, we can all pitch in and raise the money to buy it!
I’d much rather have trails and a open space, keeping the lake, than a golf course, but I’d FAR rather have a golf course than 1000+ units there. I live out near the course and I can tell you, the proposed development will be catastrophic to our area. MUCH, MUCH worse than just the golf course. So, I guess that’s how I’m looking at it.
Sacjon, I agree with you, but I really appreciate the respectful exchange you and Kirk had. So refreshing for Edhat comments!
Thank you.
TMO – It’s what it use to be like here, I miss it too! Of course, I’m to blame for some of the absurd back and forths, but I’d trade all the arguments with the regular trolls any day for healthy discussions like this!
I’m honestly surprised though, to see this much opposition to your petition. I wonder how many of these folks live out here?
The case to save a golf course- Only in Santa Barbara. If the golf course were to be converted into a park that is accessible to all and that would include habitat restoration and conservation projects, it surely would be something one could get behind, but as it would remain a for profit run golf course, put in the housing!
Icherish, I didn’t start the petition because I’m a golfer. I don’t even play Golf. I started it because I cherish Goleta. And that part of Western Goleta, in particular, could not withstand the influx of a 1000 more houses. Especially when they will not be “affordable”.
ICHERISHSB – again, it’s not like we have a choice of what is built here, just whether we can get the zoning decision reversed, if even that. The owners didn’t say, “Hey Goleta, what do you want us to do with the land?” They’re out of state (Florida and somewhere else) investors who own it and want more money. They’re not going to make it into a park. The only hope we have to keep that land from being destroyed by 1000+ units and parking lots is to keep it a golf course by pressuring the County to reverse the zoning decision they made that allowed the land to be developed into housing.
There are 2 possibilities – local, affordable and somewhat bucolic golf course, or a major housing development jammed into some of the last open space we have out here. Which would you rather have?
Unfortunate that you’d prefer housing just because it can’t be a park.
Tom, please recommend somewhere (anywhere) else that you would support building more housing, if not here.
CHURCHES.
There are dozens of churches on enormous lots sprinkled throughout the entire area that are in decline in their use, their conditions and their value. The land is already zoned and prepped. They’re already in non-commercial areas and residential neighborhoods. They are ready to go.
Scrap the churches and you can build 1000’s of units. What would be more Christ like than that?
I totally agree!
Failed motels/hotels/restaurants that are littering our town. Montecito. Tons of places around here other than this to build.
SO, you would like to save “open space”, protect infrastructure(s) from being over extended (roadways, sewer systems, water supply, etc)… This can all be achieved by VOTING OUT the Sacramento legislators and Governor Newsom, who have MANDATED that every municipality must build housing… It is not debatable or up for discussion. IF you waiver on this building MANDATE, the State implemented a program called, “The Builder’s Remedy”, which allows building developers to BYPASS local ordinances…. SO, you got (get) what you voted for Californians. This is what happens when you live in a ONE-PARTY ruled State. Suck it up.
Kirk, where did you get your figures to show that the Santa Barbara area is already well served for golf? Let alone the false assertion that a public golf course is for the “wealthy”?
Citations please.
Because the actual figures are vastly different. The SB area is among the least served areas in the nation for golf. The public courses are overbooked and the population under served. The area has lost 3 courses in the last decade (Ocean Meadows, Rancho San Marcos, Hidden Oaks) and with Glen Annie going away and Sandpiper going down for a couple of years for remodel in 2026 – soon we will only have one public course for 250k residents and 7.2mm visitors a year, a major University, a Community College and 5 +/- High Schools… Its not like SB Muni is a great course either. It’s a small course with poor practice facilities and limited headroom. It’s simply not capable of handling the demand let alone living up to the quality people want and expect these days.
SB and Goleta have enormous areas of open space and recreational areas. You can walk for miles upon miles in the back country, along the beaches or in any of the dozens of parks with your binoculars and look for birds and not see another human. For free. Everyday.
You may not like it but golf is more popular than ever. Covid brought millions to the sport. Its booming and is extremely popular. Contrary to your opinions, well managed golf courses offer an environmental benefit. Glenn Annie and Sandpiper both use effluence ( poop water) for instance. They offer wildlife (specifically birds) space, trees, and plants. They give people places to be and offer an activity that is available to everyone, no matter their age. They are a fire break and an essential area for fire staging and safety. The list goes on, but you can do your own research at the Audubon https://www.auduboninternational.org/acsp-for-golf And also do your research on how 100 acres of grass and trees compares to 100 acres of concrete, tar roofs and 500 cars in its benefit for the “environment” and society.
Let’s not forget that our area has decided that Tourism is its most important industry. There are millions of people who choose to visit SB every year for many reasons. Among them is recreation, specifically golf. People will go elsewhere if there is no place to play golf. They wont book their buddies trips, their weddings, their corporate events, their meetings here.They’ll go to areas that serve all of their needs.
Glen Annie is not a great golf course, it’s not really worth saving on its merits. But it’s worth saving for the future and for the fact that it’s impossible to build anything like this today,let alone in 10 years.
Communities need places like golf course. Classic 3rd places. They’re for the kids, youth, the elderly and all the people in between. People love golf, that’s not going to change. In a community that works so hard to protect what we have, its asinine to lose something used many. Once it’s gone, it’s never coming back.
Great points, BROBRAH. People need to also think about the fact that the housing development will extend beyond the golf course area back up into the hills. It will do FAR more damage to the ecosystem than the golf course does. Not to mention the traffic and pollution caused by thousands of additional people living in that small area.
Really astonishing honestly how many people are so against golf courses that they would prefer a far more environmentally detrimental housing development. Is it a class warfare thing? I just don’t get it.
Sadly, it’s not just the golf course, but a whole lot of farmland in Goleta and points north. Even more sadly, all of this new housing will NOT reduce the need for affordable housing; people will still be commuting, and worker housing will still need to subsidized. There just won’t be a golf course or all of that agricultural land. It’s called “urban sprawl,” and it’s sad to see government at all levels promoting it. There’s a reason that it costs more to go to Disneyland than a neighborhood carnival. Screwing up Disneyland is not the answer.
Compelling rejoinder to the criticism by and large. This is a choice between the lesser of two bad facts. Adding more homes into the foothills and pushing the urban footprint further out is not good. OTH one hears that golf courses are badly maintained with the use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides that run off into the streams and ground water. What do we know about Glen Annie’s practices?
Hey BroBrah, I wasn’t going to say anymore about this, figured I’d said enough already. But since you asked, I don’t have any figures about golf course usage, so call me ignorant if you wish. (I notice you didn’t provide any citations for “least served areas in the nation”, but that’s ok you’re not obligated to) The municipal course, Twin Lakes, and I thought Hidden Oaks is still available, and from what I know they’re all more affordable. But I don’t play golf, never have, and so yeah I know nothing about how crowded they are. They sure don’t look crowded, but all I know is what I see driving or walking by.
So since I’m not a golfer I’m one of the majority of residents that are not welcome on a golf course, unless I want to to the clubhouse for a meal. Those spaces are off limits to people like me. I’ll take your word that golf is getting more popular, and that they’re getting crowded as our population slowly increases. But I just think it’s hard to make the case that we, as a community, should be alarmed at the losses of opportunities to play golf, and the tourist $$ case is kind of hard to accept, especially for Glen Annie, but I haven’t researched that hypothesis.
Rancho San Marcos was a terrible place to put a golf course, in my opinion, for lots of reasons, so maybe we can call that an outlier. But I’m glad you mentioned Ocean Meadows, because something like that is what I’d like to see happen to Glen Annie. Why couldn’t we be more creative and successfully blend housing, recreation, and restore natural habitats? Why are the only choices either all golf, or all housing? It’s a large open space, we could do lots of stuff with it, and I should say that I do appreciate how golf courses maintain open spaces. There was a time when we, as a local community, had the luxury of lots of open spaces to use for things like golf, but as you know we’re losing that luxury and we have to be more thoughtful about how we use our resources, and to maintain such large areas exclusively for the few people who play that game makes less and less sense to me, and I really don’t think I’m alone in thinking that.
To be crystal clear about it, I don’t favor 1000 more houses being built in that space. (Why 1000? Would 500 be ok? 200? 681?) I’d love to see Montecito pick up some of the responsibility for providing more affordable housing or community open spaces on their golf courses and if any momentum starts in that direction I’ll be 100% behind it. Fact is we need more affordable housing around here and we need to solve that problem. We are also losing natural spaces, in fact they are more and more being seen as a luxury, but we have amazing examples of natural spaces being successfully restored here. These are both things that provide benefits to the whole community and it’s just hard to put golf on that same level.
@ dalgorf- https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/
Please prove where I am wrong…