D1) Tax-Exempt Bonds for San Marcos Affordable Housing 
(Estimated Time: 5 minutes) 

D2) Responses to 2024-25 Grand Jury Report on the South Coast Housing Crisis 
(Estimated Time: 30 minutes) 

Summary: 

The Board will consider adopting a response to the 2024-25 Grand Jury Report entitled “Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis – A Call to Action.” The Grand Jury found that the South Coast’s housing crisis, especially for low- and moderate-income residents, is driven by ongoing barriers such as high construction costs, restrictive zoning, complex regulations, and community resistance. The Board’s responses outline actions already taken and next steps to streamline permitting, identify public land for housing, and support local housing development.

D3) Bidwell Appeal of Mariposa Investment Trust Agricultural Water Well 
(Estimated Time: 1 hour) 

Summary: 

The Board will hear an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow the installation of an agricultural water well to irrigate a fruit orchard and approximately 100 cubic yards of grading to complete the installation of additional fruit trees, landscaping, and site improvements at 4295 Mariposa Drive in the Hope Ranch area. The appeal raises concerns about septic issues, impacts on nearby wells, oak tree health, and environmental review. Staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding approval of the project. 

D4)Soutar Appeal of the Mission Isla Vista Partners LP Housing Development 
(Estimated Time: 1 hour and 10 minutes)  
 

Summary: 

The Board will hear an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of the Mission Isla Vista Partners LP Housing Development Project at 6737 Sueno Road in Isla Vista. It includes replacing an existing building with three new three-story apartment buildings consisting of 16 rental units (45 bedrooms total), with a mix of very-low- and moderate-income housing. The project also includes 24 parking spaces, bike storage, and various site improvements. The appellant argues the project lacks sufficient parking and transit access, improperly relied on an environmental exemption, and was approved without adequate evidence. Staff recommends denying the appeal and approving the project.