Goleta Council Leaves Glen Annie Golf Course in Limbo

» Richard Foster on 06.17.09 @ 04:41 AM

The people can vote. 
If you want this golf course to continue, go play golf.  Use their restaurant.  They serve a nice brunch in pleasant surroundings.  But the financial success or failure of a business is not the correct grounds for deciding ag conversions.  There is no “right” to convert a property to another use, but they were free to ask.
However, the answer to their financial problems is not to “give it” to the city, so the City of Goleta can try to make it profitable and they can make a profit building homes.  This is what was presented last night.
Perhaps the strongest arguement agaisnt this project was put forward by its proponents, “we have 300-400 regular players”.
The basic question is will Goleta slowly let their foothills be covered by the sprawl that took over in the Santa Barbara foothills?

» Carola Nicholson on 06.17.09 @ 05:50 AM

First I commend Mr. Foster for not hiding behind a catchy title to express his opinions. When I think of the government I want to see leadership make tough decisions and to consider projects from a variety of information and possibilities that lie in front of them, and/or to request additional information to consider all aspects. That clearly did not happen last night. In my opinion by voting no, city council, you show lack of leadership and vision. I understand that it is hard to always make the right decision yet by saying no you have also made a decision. This vote was not a solution to tough problems.

» Goleta is pathetic on 06.17.09 @ 08:21 AM

Hey “doesn’t take a mathemetician” - go back to playing your hackysac at the beach.  Oh, and enjoy the new parking fees the county will be applying soon to raise money.  You know, what I saw on TV last night was 75 jobs on the line, a building being lost that fosters community meetings (in a city that’s best version of a downtown is a Starbucks in a mall), $200k in revenue to the local community and recreation for people.  All that was lost because of the intellectually bankrupt logic of people like you.

» Richard Foster on 06.17.09 @ 01:25 PM

Name calling is not productive.  Margaret Connell and Eric Onan are both entitled to express their views and should be criticized on the merit or lack there of in their arguments.
If this course goes brown, blame the residents who chose not to support it.  Then again brown does save tons of water and pesticides.
No compelling argument was given for re-zoning this parcel other than the owner is losing money.
Meanwhile if you like the course, go golf tomorrow and bring a friend.

» Disappointed Goleta Resident on 06.18.09 @ 07:51 AM

Brown is also much more of a fire hazard for the neighborhoods adjacent to the course.  My understanding is that the course uses primarily reclaimed water to irrigate the landscaping.  I’m sure the neighbors appreciated that buffer when the Gap Fire was raging.

Would avo trees grow there?  Sure, but my bet is that they would require significantly more potable water than is being used by the course today.  But I’m no ag expert, it’s just a guess.

» Long Time Resident on 06.19.09 @ 11:19 AM

When the County was approached to re-zone this site from “Ag” and “Open Space”
to “Public Recreation - Public Golf Course”, many speakers pointed out that the
project might not be commercially viable.

The owners begged and demanded that they be given a chance to try. “If it fails,
we will accept the consequences,” they promised the Board of Supervisors.

When the County did approve a re-zone, under various conditions, an important one was that the underlying designation would remain Ag/Open Space. The owners
publicly accepted that condition.

From the very first year, the golf course developers and the County had to be sued
by their own constituents - and the golf course’s neighbors - to compel them to
honor their own “conditions of project approval.”

Now that the owners acknowledge that the golf course may not be profitable, are
they sticking to their promise to local government, neigbhors and the community?

No, the Newport Beach owners, who purchased the golf course in full knowledge of its finances, and its zoning/general plan designations, are trying the old Bait ‘n Switch.

They bought a “golf course”, but want to build market housing, and a soccer field.
Which of those uses is “Ag/Open Space”?

This is called land speculation investing. It is a speciality of Orange County builders.

Perhaps Councilman Onnen would be less upset by Goleta’s Council’s action on the golf course, if his campaign team hadn’t accepted campaign support from the developers. Or perhaps all those AirBus trips to LAX are making him jumpy about everything.

If you ask most reputable local developers, they’d rather have a clear, honest, up-
front answer about whether a new project idea is viable - even if it’s NO - than go
“through the process”, spend hundreds of thousands on studies and reports, then
get turned down at the end anyway, for the same reasons.

If Mr. Onnen doesn’t understand that, he is so naive, or so beholden to donors, that
he probably might be more comfortable in some other line of work than serving on
the City Council of one of California’s newer cities.

» LongTimeGoletaResident on 06.21.09 @ 05:33 PM

When Mr. O’Shaunessy, (the original developer), brought forth the Glenn Annie Golf Course proposal, there was an onsite meeting open to the public. Mr O’Shaunessy was questioned about the financial viability of a golf cours, since it is a well known fact that golf courses lose money without housing development surrounding them. His reply was a study had been done that indicated that this golf course would be profitable. There is no guarantee that a business venture will be profitable. The RISK belongs soley to the person or corporation that develops or purchases the business. When Ag land is rezoned to residential, the value of that land multiplies 100 times, or more. We should not change our zoning laws to enable the golf course to turn a windfall profit.