Santa Barbara’s Eastside is getting 90 new housing units.

Nearby residents got together to block the four-story project, appealing to the Santa Barbara City Council the April approval by the Architectural Board of Review.

Tuesday’s vote was close, at 4-3, with Councilwoman Meagan Harmon, Councilmen Mike Jordan and Eric Friedman and Mayor Randy Rowse voting in support of the project at 418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St.

Typically pro-housing Councilman Oscar Gutierrez and Councilwomen Kristen Sneddon and Wendy Santamaria sided with the nearby residents who said the project was too big, would block views, would increase traffic congestion, and would create potential flooding problems and runoff onto nearby properties.

“I am genuinely excited about the prospect of building new housing because, yes, we need more housing, but we need to be very careful about how we do it,” Santamaria said. “I am very concerned about both the health and safety impacts of both the folks that will live in those units as well as the health and safety of the surrounding neighborhood.”

She said the people who would live there could have a partner and maybe a child, and that would triple the ratio of units to people.

“This really leads us into traffic and safety,” Santamaria said.

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. Eight seniors currently live on a portion of the site, which is shaped like an “L” and wraps around Starbucks and Rusty’s Pizza.

The tenants would receive relocation assistance and have the first right of refusal to return to the units at a rent no more than 10% of the current rent. The property owners have promised to find them all housing during the construction.

The development is owned by the Goldenstone Trust, Donald Barthelmess and Carol Kallman. Bob Ludwick manages the eight units.

The developers plan to build 65 parking spaces.

The project qualifies for Builder’s Remedy, which means the application was submitted when the city did not have a certified Housing Element. Under such rules, the city has no power to limit the number of units or height of the project.

Although the project qualifies for Builder’s Remedy, it is proposed under the city’s average unit-sized density incentive program, state bonus density law, which allows for more density if the developers build a higher number of affordable units. Under the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance, the project requires only nine affordable units, but the developers are adding another six.

Some of the nearby residents spoke during Tuesday’s meeting, saying their views would be blocked, that the increased traffic would lead to evacuation problems, and that the project would create flooding onto their properties.

“What we gain in housing we are losing in charm and livability,” Eastside resident Christine Neuhauser said. “Enough of the housing for all who want to live here. You can’t build it because everyone wants to live here.”

Natalia Todorovic, an Eastside resident who lives near the project, formally filed the appeal. During a portion of her presentation, she wrapped her hands in a red rope and raised them high to illustrate how city officials in previous meetings said their hands were tied in denying the project. Todorovic disputed that contention.

“We are not anti-housing,” Todorovic said. “We know there is a desperate need for housing in Santa Barbara, but this is the wrong project, in the wrong place, being pushed through in the wrong way.”

Councilwoman Sneddon agreed. She said there would be increased traffic congestion concerns and evacuation fears. She also opposed only once entrance and exit to the development. There is only one entrance currently on Gutierrez Street and no entrance on Milpas Street. She also said the units needed more light.

“I think we have flooding, traffic, ingress and egress that need to be evaluated,” Sneddon said.

She added that she was upset that seniors would need to move. Even though the new units would be designated as affordable, they would not specifically be for seniors.

“Seniors are being pushed out right and left here,” Sneddon said. “That’s like the fastest-growing population of people who are homeless because Social Security checks don’t go as far.”

Since the project qualified for Builder’s Remedy, Harmon, Friedman, Jordan and Rowse said they could not deny the project because the state specifically passed SB 330 to force cities to approve housing that they had denied for decades.

Harmon said she agreed that state law is constraining the city’s behavior and that it is a challenge to have a “continuous set of ever-changing rules coming down from the state,” telling them what they could do.

However, Harmon said that if the council were to deny a 90-unit housing project with more affordable units than the city requires, it would affirm the original reason the state passed SB 330 in the first place.

“Truthfully, I think the message we would be sending if we did that is essentially to tell the legislature that they were right not to trust us to implement our own housing laws,” Harmon said. “At the end of the day, this is what we are asking our developers to do. The affordability component is a good thing.”