AB1893 x SB79 x Local Zoning Control – Its “Apt.-Complexed”

The saying, “Its complicated” or should we say, “it’s apartment-complexed”, suits the ongoing debate over the Mission LLC group owners Craig and Stephanie Smith’s project to construct an 8 story, two building, 270-unit housing complex at, wait for it, 505 East Los Olivos Street, Santa Barbara, the private residential property behind the SB Mission and near the SB Museum of Natural History. Zillow has estimated the 4.93 acres lot and single family 1885 built building at $8,695,900. 

While the City of Santa Barbara [City] is suing the group for back property taxes, the group is countersuing the City saying they lease it to a religious group and are exempt. Although prior years may show religious organizations at that site, it was sold in 2021 to the Smiths and according to local authorities, has been vacant since. 

As matter of due diligence, area news research shows, “…San Bernardino police raided three buildings she [Stephanie Smith] owned and confiscated thousands of marijuana plants all seen on video. Investigators got suspicious when a $67,000 electric bill popped up at one of her properties thought to be vacant and red-tagged it. Smith lives 80 miles from San Bernardino in Pacific Palisades…If Smith looks or sounds familiar, she was the subject of a story CBS2 ran in 2008. Back then, her last name was Darcy and she was accused of performing liposuction on patients in Dr. Craig Alan Bittner’s Beverly Hills office, even though she didn’t have a medical degree. Three patients sued Smith and Bittner, but the cases were dismissed. You might recall Bittner also made headlines for turning fat into biodiesel for his SUV. The two now work together in real estate development.”

[https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/mom-pot-grow-operation-says-all-legal/]

Adding to the zoning mix are state laws that our communities need to be aware of: 

AB 1983: Builders Remedy; SB 79: Housing development: transit-oriented development; CEQA: the California Environmental Quality Act; AB 130 and SB 131 to water down CEQA effective June 30, 2025, [think the Palisades fires rebuild].

AB 1893 is set up by the State of California as, “…an intended consequence of local governments’ failure to adopt legally sufficient housing plans. Starting January 1, 2025, new Builder’s Remedy projects must comply with site restrictions, density limits, certain objective local standards, and other mandated requirements. Existing Builder’s Remedy projects that meet certain requirements may be protected automatically, and or may convert to AB 1893 by redesigning the project without losing the project’s entitlement to the Builder’s Remedy. AB 1893 allows applicants to add any density bonus afforded by “State Density Bonus Law”, which can increase density by up to 100 percent for qualifying projects.” [ref: https://www.hklaw.com] 

Note that the City of Santa Barbara received State approval of its housing plan, 

“On February 13, 2024, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) informed the City of Santa Barbara [City] that the City’s adopted Housing Element is in substantial compliance with state law. The City submitted the 2023-2031 Housing Element for state approval on December 21, 2023, following its adoption by City Council on December 12, 2023. The Housing Element is a state-mandated part of the City’s General Plan and identifies how the city will accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 8,001 units at different levels of affordability and affirmatively further fair housing across the community. The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element analysis shows that the City has the capacity to accommodate its share of the RHNA without the need to rezone parcels for higher density. With this finding from HCD, the City will no longer be accepting project applications under the Builder’s Remedy provisions in the Housing Accountability Act.”

[ref: https://santabarbaraca.gov/press-releases/state-certifies-citys-adopted-2023-2031-housing-element] 

CA SB79 proposed by Senator Scott Weiner Dem San Francisco was brought up in fair warning by Montecito Association [MA] Board member Bill Babbitt in March 2025 and most recently by Cindy Chvatal of United Neighbors at the June 2025 MA meeting; both published by the Montecito Journal in the MA meeting news reports. 

To recap: 

Chvatal, “United Neighbors want Montecito to be aware of SB79 up now before State Assembly. It will end our zoning as we know it. This bill takes by Scott Weiner was first brought up in January 2025. SB79 is a land use bill that will allow 65-to-75-unit apartment buildings be located a quarter mile from a bus lane or rail lane. The state wants to take away local control of zoning. We want your support against this bill. It allows multi-unit complexes without affordable housing and if the complex has affordable housing the unit can be higher in elevation.” 

Babbitt, “Sharon Byrne was part of United Neighbors and kept the MA informed. The new senate bill by Senator Scott Wiener, SB79, increases the density of an area by allowing multi-family housing units on all parcels throughout the state, ‘SB 79 will make it faster and easier to build multi-family housing near transit stops, like train and rapid bus lines, by making it legal for more homes to be built in these areas and streamlining existing permit review processes.’ Thiswould decimate west Los Angeles and all of Montecito, taking away zoning rights. SB9 is regarding lot splits and SB10 is 10 units on single family lots.” 

As defined by Fish and Game, the CEQA, act serves to disclose to the public the significance of environmental effects of a proposed project and enhance public participation in the review process, and many other pertinent data points – see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/CEQA

Swimming environmentally upstream are the laws signed by Gov. Newsom:

AB 130 and SB 131 reforming the CEQA effective June 30, 2025. AB 130’s CEQA exemption applies to housing-rich development projects that meet specific criteria, such as, “The project is consistent with local zoning standards, applicable general plan standards and any applicable local coastal program, subject to deviations allowed by the State Density Bonus Law.” A caveat in SB 131 is that the project must not be located on natural and protected lands. 

Now back to the importance of the outcome of the 505 East Los Olivos property zoning, and proposed construction. Are we listening Montecito, Summerland and Carpinteria?

It would seem that proper reviews and reports be done publicly by the SB ABR, the SB County Planning Commission, the SB Zoning Admin, the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission, along with an Environmental Impact Report, a Tribal Review of the area by Chumash Elders, fire and evacuation safety by the SB County Fire Department and First Responders, a review by the Fish and Wildlife Commission, SB Water Commission, SB Public Works, and related governing bodies.

The stakeholders pushing back on the development include the local residents; 

property owners regardless of location; the WakeUp SB group founded by Evan Minogue which cancelled their July 27 rally; and the “More than 50 local architects, designers, and planners [including Mayor Randy Rouse] have united to take a stand against two large apartment projects proposed for the hills above Santa Barbara, 505 E. Los Olivos Street, and another at 1609-1615 Grand Avenue, by the Smiths.” [https://www.noozhawk.com/architects-planners-band-together-to-fight-two-housing-projects-on-santa-barbara-riviera/]

Let’s recommend that SB District 4 City Councilperson Kristen Sneddon have as many Stakeholder meetings as needed, while all permitting agencies openly investigate the backgrounds and intentions of whom they grant permits to.