Santa Barbara County needs more housing. But the urgency of the housing shortage should not make every open parcel of land an automatic development opportunity. When that land is an established golf course, the decision deserves more scrutiny than simply calculating how many homes could be built there.
Glen Annie Golf Club in Goleta is a case in point. Santa Barbara County approved rezoning the property in 2024 to allow residential development, and the current proposal envisions between 800 and 1,000 homes. The developer says at least 20% would be affordable, with nearly 100 acres of the larger property set aside for open space and passive recreation. It is an ambitious proposal, and its potential contribution to the housing supply should be taken seriously.
But so should the cost of losing the golf course.
The pressure to find land is real. Under California’s 2023–2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, unincorporated Santa Barbara County must plan for enough capacity to accommodate 5,664 homes. The City of Santa Barbara has an allocation of 8,001, and Goleta another 1,837. These figures are planning targets, not construction quotas, but they help explain why local officials are looking at different types of properties for development.
Glen Annie’s rezoning does not mean construction is ready to begin. The project remains in planning and pre-construction, with the developer working through studies and design. An early 2029 construction start is currently a projection. The course and event center are expected to remain open during the permitting process.
Traffic and emergency access are not minor details to be addressed after the housing numbers have been celebrated. In its environmental review of the nearby Shelby residential project, the City of Goleta documented concerns about congestion around the Glen Annie interchange, roadway safety, and emergency evacuation. The review also considered the potential cumulative effects of nearby development on evacuation delays. These issues deserve serious consideration alongside the proposed housing benefits.
There is also a tendency to view golf courses as large green spaces that serve a relatively narrow interest. That overlooks their wider role. Public-access courses provide places for residents and visitors to play, support local jobs, and help attract travelers whose spending benefits nearby businesses. For a region whose appeal is closely tied to outdoor recreation and tourism, these facilities contribute to the local economy and quality of life.
The Santa Barbara Municipal Golf Course offers another way to look at the issue. A local suggestion has called for using part of the city-owned property for affordable housing while retaining a smaller, nine-hole course. Although it is not an adopted city plan, the idea challenges the assumption that redevelopment must mean eliminating a recreational facility altogether. It suggests that communities should at least consider whether housing and recreation can share the same property.
Other local examples reinforce that point. Goleta’s review of a proposed major renovation of Sandpiper Golf Club includes changes to the 18-hole course, a new clubhouse, landscaping and irrigation improvements, and a public trail along Hollister Avenue. Although the City has completed its environmental review, the project still requires further approvals, including review by the California Coastal Commission. The former Ocean Meadows Golf Course took a different path, becoming part of UC Santa Barbara’s North Campus Open Space, where wetlands, wildlife habitat, and public trails replaced the former course. The right answer depends on the site, not a blanket assumption that golf land is surplus.
No golf course should be immune from change, and Santa Barbara cannot address its housing shortage without making difficult land-use decisions. At Glen Annie, decision-makers should demonstrate that the proposed homes will be genuinely affordable, that roads and infrastructure can support the added population, and that less damaging alternatives have been seriously considered.
The question is not whether Santa Barbara needs more homes. It does. The question is whether building them must come at the expense of places that contribute to the community’s character, economy, and quality of life. A successful development should do more than increase the housing count. It should leave something valuable for the next generation, too.
About the Author
Sean Petersen is the founder of Golf Trip Junkie.