HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/15/2019 Item 9, White
From:Linda White <
To:CityClerk; Harmon, Heidi; Gomez, Aaron; Christianson, Carlyn; Pease, Andy; Stewart,
Erica; E-mail Council Website
Subject:Foothill Academy Luxury Student Housing appeal
Re: Foothill Luxury Student Housing
I am tired of being characterized as a NIMBY if I complain about a project, I try to give suggestions on how to
improve the development. If I have an objection to height, density, etc. it is because I do not want the entire
town to lose the very character that brought us all here. I want truly affordable housing for the San Luis
workforce at the low wages that they make. We don't need more luxury housing for students or residents. We
don't need more retail space downtown with luxury hotel rooms above. I am appalled by the empty storefronts
downtown and the loss of local businesses. We are going the way of the now shabby State St. of Santa Barbara.
I am also tired of being told that you can't discriminate against student housing. Why not? By invoking this
mantra you are discriminating against the SLO workers.
Although I don't live in this neighborhood, I used to do a great deal of shopping here. I am against the proposed
Academy project on Foothill for a number of reasons:
■ The Foothill/Broad/Chorro intersections are terribly dangerous already. I now avoid this area and all the retail
stores that I used to support on both sides of Foothill. (Royal Thai, UPS Store, Starbucks, T-nails, Nucci's,
Wells Fargo ATM, SLO Donuts, Rite-Aid, Lassen's)
■Parking for the retail stores is being used by students living in the area with inadequate parking and those
driving close to the campus and parking to bike, walk or bus to campus. This is another reason to avoid the
retail stores.
■Already approved and built, 22 Chorro is too large, tall, and dense for the lot, blocks views of the hills,
inadequate parking, asked for two-bedroom units but has partitions making them 4-bedroom units. Does this
follow City Guidelines or is it a bait and switch? This should have been built on CP property. True low income
or affordable housing for SLO workers should have been built here.
■Already approved and in construction Palomar is too large, provides no buffer to the adjacent neighborhood of
single-family homes. Once it opens, I am sure that the approval of inadequate parking will be a problem to the
neighbors. This too should have been built on CP property and real "affordable housing" built on this site.
■The "low income component" is too meager for the developer advantages of higher density, land usage, height
accommodations, etc.
When will this City Council and the advisory bodies grow a backbone and build true "affordable housing for its
residents and get Cal Poly to build student housing for low income and "luxury" students on state property?
I will not be attending the CC meeting as I find it a waste of time as those in attendance are ignored unless they
agree with the CC and SLO attorney. Even writing this letter is a waste of time but I refuse to believe that
government can't be changed if enough of us speak out. Truth to Power!
Linda White
2077 Slack St.
SLO, 93405
1