Go to Sacramento.

That’s what Architectural Board of Review member Will Sofrin told neighbors of a 90-unit apartment project proposed for Milpas and Gutierrez streets in Santa Barbara.

“I understand that change is impactful to the residents, and I am sorry for that, but we are dealing with something that goes beyond what we can do here,” Sofrin said. “I recommend the applicants consider taking their battle to Sacramento, because that’s really what we are fighting.”

Sofrin and a majority of the board voted 4-2 on Monday night to approve the project, proposed for two parcels, at 418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. Eight senior units currently on the site would be demolished.

Board members Richard Six and Dennis Whelan voted in opposition, while chair Lauren Anderson and board members Steve Nuhn, David Black and Sofrin voted in support.

A gaggle of neighbors has opposed the projects, contending that the four-story building is too tall and out of character with the neighborhood. The project would be a Builder’s Remedy development, which, according to SB 330, allows for an expedited and limited review process as long as the project meets the city’s current zoning standard.

For the most part, the ABR’s hands are tied when it comes to halting the project, as pointed out by Assistant City Attorney Tava Ostrenger.

“This is an aesthetic board,” Ostrenger said. “Your focus is on the aesthetics of the project. It is not a land-use board. You are just evaluating the project for its aesthetics.”

SB 330 was passed to make it easier for developers to get housing projects approved and to help address a statewide shortage of affordable housing.

“We are in a housing crisis, and the city is lagging in its housing production,” said Beth Collins, an attorney for the developer.

The development is owned by the Goldenstone Trust, Donald Barthelmess and Carol Kallman. Bob Ludwick manages the eight units. He said any development at the site is at least two years away.

The project calls for 90 units, including 29 studios, 46 one-bedroom units and 15 two-bedroom units. Nine of the units would be for very-low-income residents; six units would be for moderate-income residents.

Board member Richard Six pushed back a bit on the idea that the ABR should focus only on the design. He said it is also responsible for aesthetics in the context of the rest of the neighborhood.

“I am absolutely convinced this is not compatible with the neighborhood,” Six said.

Some of the residents who spoke expressed extreme opposition to the project.

Britta Bartels said Santa Barbara is a charter city and should not have to comply with SB 330. She read off a definition of the ABR’s responsibility, which included protecting the character of Santa Barbara.

“I hope you remember what you read when you were hired for this job, and I encourage you to deny this whole thing,” Bartels said.

Danny Moreno, who lives and owns property next to the proposed development, invited every commissioner to visit his home.

“I will be living in a shadow,” Moreno said. “You go to properties and check these sites out, but you don’t go to neighboring properties. I welcome you to visit my house and look at what my property will face.”

Eastside resident Christine Neuhauser urged the ABR to “stand with the community.”

“It’s a location that is already plagued by a lot of traffic congestion and limited parking,” Neuhauser said. “The project has many problems.”

The board members expressed concern about the size of the project.

“I am fairly convinced that the rest of the building is too large for the neighborhood,” Whelan said. “It is not compatible with the neighborhood, especially the immediate neighbors.”

However, Sofrin said the residents’ concerns were misplaced.

“We’re not fighting with the city. We’re fighting with state mandates,” he said.

Sofrin said there are multiple Builder’s Remedy projects in the works that are maximizing their potential opportunity, but this project is not one.

For example, the developers could get away with building only 45 parking spaces but instead are building 65 parking spaces. Normally, one space would be required for each unit, but if 11% of the spaces are for very-low-income individuals, parking could be reduced to a half-space per unit.

“I think it is important for us to try and support applicants who are bringing change to our city whether we like it or not, but are not maximizing those opportunities,” Sofrin said. “The fact that there’s parking, I think it’s a Godsend considering some of the other projects that are going to the city.”