The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors hearing Tuesday on a controversial housing project in Isla Vista took an interesting twist.

Rather than approving or denying the original proposal for 6737 Sueno Road, the board ended up approving a new design on which the developers and neighbors collaborated — a solution that came together at the eleventh hour, in the middle of the hearing. 

“This is the spirit of Isla Vista that’s carrying us through here, all those wonderful young people that we hold such high esteem for,” Second District Supervisor Laura Capps said.

The board reviewed the original project proposal in September after Isla Vista residents Pegeen and Jon Soutar appealed the approval of the county Planning Commission, arguing that the development would worsen already dangerous traffic conditions and congested parking, especially with 48 other housing projects proposed for Isla Vista.

Following that hearing, the Soutars met with developers Lonnie Roy, on behalf of Ed St. George, and Isla Vista Church leaders Jason and Holly Lomelino, who will manage the future building, and collaborated on a new design that addressed the Soutars’ concerns. 

The new proposal has a courtyard in the middle of the building, with one side housing seven units and the side facing Sueno Road housing nine units. The proposal still has a total of 45 bedrooms, but the big change is that it has the potential for 36 parking spaces rather than the originally proposed 24 parking spaces. 

“We’re good with that plan,” Pegeen Soutar said during Tuesday’s meeting. “It’s good. I think it’s a nice fit for Isla Vista. I think, again, the parking is really important, but it’s been a very amicable and even fun sometimes conversation.”

Throughout the process, Soutar made it clear that the site should have housing.

“We need something there,” Soutar said. “We need housing in Isla Vista. We need affordable housing in Isla Vista, but we need housing that isn’t detrimental in the long run. I think this is really a good move in the right direction.”

While the Soutars and developers agreed to the new proposal, it seemed like red tape was going to get in the way.

The developers had only a site plan of the revised proposal — no designs — and county staff hadn’t had a chance to study the proposal and ensure it was in line with county code. 

Lisa Plowman, director of the county Planning and Development Department, said the revised project would have to go to the Planning Commission, which would take up to four months. 

However, that would be the project’s sixth hearing, and because it falls under SB330, the project was subject to only five public hearings, so the developers would have to willingly agree to go to a sixth hearing.

Roy explained they were worried about having to start the planning process all over again, which would further delay construction.

“I think we did get to a place where everyone could’ve been happy with this reworked project, but we just ran into the process,” Roy said. “We were ready to gear it up and develop a more detailed iteration of this, if it could have been approved at this hearing, but there just wasn’t a road there.”

Capps said she was more in favor of the revised project, specifically because of the increased parking.

“This produced what this board hoped could happen,” Capps said. “We have an appeals process that most oftentimes does not end with two parties meeting in a park, amicably coming up with creative solutions and coming to consensus, and we didn’t quite get there. They didn’t quite get there because of process, but not because of intention or consensus, so I say let’s have consensus win out here over process.”

In the end, it was Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson who suggested that the board approve the revised project based on the proposed site plan.

The board ended up pausing the hearing to allow county staff and developers to change the original project description to match the revised project, which allowed the board to approve the new project without sending it back to the Planning Commission.

Finally, just after 7 p.m., the board unanimously approved the revised project description that included more parking.

Two of the units are still designated for low-income individuals, while two more will be for moderate-income individuals. 

Each affordable housing lease will include one designated parking spot at no additional cost to tenants.

Additionally, the tenants of the affordable units will have first right of refusal to lease an additional parking spot, meaning they will get offered additional spots before other tenants.