Two titans of Santa Barbara collided at City Hall on Tuesday.

And housing won.

Attorney Barry Cappello, on behalf of his client who owns a neighboring commercial property, appealed the design approval of a 19-unit, market-rate housing project at 425 Santa Barbara St.

The owner of the housing project? Developer Ed St. George.

Cappello delivered a courtroom-like, authoritative presentation to the council, warning them that there was “grounds for a lawsuit” if they denied his appeal.

The four-story housing project was approved with no parking spaces, and Cappello asserted that the project was “precedent-setting” and would lead to canyons surrounded by tall buildings and no parking all over the city.

He called it a “joke” that people would not own cars when living in the apartments.

“Are we kidding ourselves?” Cappello said. “Is that pure sophistry? They all are going to ride bikes and walk? Please.”

Cappello, who worked as the Santa Barbara City Attorney in the 1970s, said that the council during his tenure did not approve high-density buildings because of concerns about water, sewage and traffic congestion.

He acknowledged those policies contributed to the housing crisis. Still, he said, the council needs to decide what kind of city it is going to be.

“Somebody is going to ultimately say it was this council that did the right thing or the wrong thing,” Cappello said. “This is the wrong thing for Santa Barbara.”

The council voted 5-1 to deny Cappello’s appeal, which was filed on behalf of the commercial property owner next door at 126 E. Haley Street.

Councilwoman Kristen Sneddon voted to grant the appeal. Councilwoman Meagan Harmon was not present for the meeting.

The appeal, the debate over height and housing, parking and planning, exploded like fireworks in one dramatic moment inside City Hall. The city is under great pressure from the state of California to build more housing, and developers have never had it easier to get projects approved on the American Riviera.

But intense debates exist over whether the approval of such housing projects will save or sabotage Santa Barbara.

Since 2012, Santa Barbara has approved nearly 500 housing units, most of which are rented at market-rate, and still financially out of reach for low-income workers who service most of Santa Barbara tourism industry.

The 19-unit housing project would have three below-market-rate units, per the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance.

New state law allows developers to build high-density housing with no parking spaces if the projects are within a half-mile of public transit.

St. George did not attend the meeting Tuesday at City Hall. He told Noozhawk prior to the meeting that he had no doubt that the council would side with building more housing.

Speaking on behalf of St. George was Jarrett Gorin, principal of Vanguard Planning.

Gorin himself is a formidable presence at City Hall. Like St. George and Cappello, he has deep roots in the city, and he has worked as a planner for decades. The council knows him and respects his knowledge of the planning process.

Of Cappello’s presentation, Gorin told the council, “Wow, that’s a lot to unpack.”

He changed his planned presentation to respond to Cappello, but also thanked city staff for “debunking” the appeal arguments.

Gorin said the project is proposed in an area that is already highly developed and would not stand out in Santa Barbara. He said it’s not some “pastoral suburban area,” and is in the city’s Central Business District.”

He pushed back on some of Cappello’s concerns about space for construction staging, the lack of environmental review for the housing project, and the cumulative impacts.

“This is what is going to have to happen with all of the housing projects the city is counting on getting in the downtown area to meet your obligations under the state housing law,” Gorin said.

Cappello said that developers have the right to ask for whatever they want, but it is the council’s job to decided what is best for the community. He also raised comcerns about the intent of the planners.

“Your staff, they have a zealous duty for housing,” Cappello said. “But they can’t think about the future because they are all young. I am telling you I have been in this city for almost 50 years. You have to protect it. It’s not Coalinga. It’s a beautiful spot.”

Councilman Mike Jordan expressed the strongest views in defense of St. George’s housing project. He said he is concerned about his children and grandchildren having a place to live in Santa Barbara

“I am zealous about housing,” Jordan said.

He also offered his logic on approving a project without parking spaces for the tenants.

“If you are looking at a place that has no parking, and you want to have a car, you won’t select that place to live,” Jordan said. “And if you are going to select that place to live, you’ll go look for a place to lease for a car on a private lot or in a city parking structure.”

Sneddon was swayed by Cappello’s arguments, although she did scold him for referring to the city planning staff as “ladies” during his presentation.

“I don’t think it is ever advisable to refer to professional attorneys and staff members as ‘these ladies over here,'” Sneddon said. “I feel very strong I need to voice that. I found it offensive, actually.”

Still, she sided with Cappello and supported the appeal.

“I don’t believe there is sufficient public transit to call this a transit hub,” Sneddon said. “At the very least I think there needs to be agreements that people sign that they are not going to have a vehicle.

“If you do have to park three blocks away to even get a spot, you are moving into neighborhoods where it is even harder to park.”