Judson Terrace Homes resident Sharron Price-Saylor enjoys the view of San Luis Obispo from her apartment balcony on Augusta Street that looks toward Sinsheimer Park over a tall row of trees.
That vista could change thanks to two developers’ vision to erect a three-story multi-family residential complex next to Judson Terrace, removing trees and shade and bringing what Price-Saylor and her neighbors—a group called the Health and Safety Advocates for Augusta Street—say could be a host of health risks to the area.
“We are not NIMBYs,” the group said in a statement to New Times. “We would welcome a building of 14 apartments, each with its own designated parking space, comprised of 30 percent, 50 percent, or even 100 percent affordable apartments, rather than the paltry two affordable units currently being manipulated by the developers to benefit from multiple waivers and exemptions, creating multiple health and safety issues for our community.”
Project applicants Frankie and Frank Ciano plan to transform the dilapidated 2932 Augusta St. site into a complex with 28 units, two accessory dwelling units, and 14 parking spaces. The property was once home to places of worship, including the Congregation Beth David synagogue.
The Cianos didn’t respond to New Times’ request for comment.
The project requires removing 27 trees and comes with a 20 percent density bonus with concessions for reduced parking.
Under the state’s Density Bonus Law, if a proposed project includes a prescribed percentage of affordable housing, public agencies must relax development standards like parking, setbacks, and building height requirements through incentives, concessions, or waivers.
The Augusta Street project also falls under the Housing Accountability Act, where a housing project could be lawfully denied or have its density reduced if the development has a “specific, adverse impact on public health or safety.” According to the California Housing Defense Fund, that exception is very narrow and hard to prove.
But Augusta Street’s neighborhood group, many of whom are senior citizens living at Judson Terrace, believe site demolition, eventual construction, and consequently congested streets—thanks to incoming residents potentially resorting to street parking—are enough reasons for the city to nix the project.
“The parking is an inconvenience, but the impact of that many extra cars on the street is a safety issue for the kids at Sinsheimer [Elementary School],” RJ, a Judson Terrace resident who didn’t disclose his last name for anonymity, told New Times. “During the school year, when they’re coming and going, you can’t move on this street. We don’t get out of our parking lot, unless someone stops and lets us in. It’s back-to-back, bumper-to-bumper.”
Sinsheimer Elementary’s Parent Teacher Association President Kasey DeBernardi agrees. In a letter to the city, provided by the neighborhood group, she urged city planners to prioritize child safety and thoroughly evaluate traffic impacts, especially since many kids frequently cross the Augusta-Laurel intersection on their walks to and from campus.
“As our school has grown, our neighborhood has also grown with us, transitioning from a sleepy residential street to a busy thoroughfare, now home to two senior residences, an acute care center, five multi-family apartment buildings, and Fire Station No. 3,” DeBernardi wrote. “And of course, Sinsheimer Park that draws visitors from all over the city. However, with this growth have come more people, more cars, more traffic.”
SLO hasn’t decided on the housing complex yet. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) was supposed to review the project in August 2025, but city staff pulled the item and postponed the discussion. Neighbors first heard about the project when a resident saw an ARC meeting notice at the site that was allegedly partially hidden among bushes.
In anticipation of that meeting, people living near the project site, including the nonprofit sober-living group MiddleHouse and a group called Central Coast Concerned Citizens, wrote to the city about the parking issue and asked to determine whether the project requires an environmental impact review.
Credit: PHOTO BY PIETER SAAYMAN
City Assistant Planner Mallory Patino told New Times that the project was paused because the property owner was resolving a code enforcement case. A meeting date isn’t set yet for ARC review.
“The project requires an entitlement for moderate development review, which includes review and recommendation from the ARC to the community development director for final action,” Patino said via email. “Any demolition and new construction in the city requires a building permit application, which will be reviewed for compliance with city and state standards and regulations regarding health, safety, and welfare.”
She added that city staff, ARC, and the community development director would consider community input, like the neighborhood group’s recommendation to increase the portion of affordable housing units and reduce the building size, before making up their minds.
The neighborhood group is now waiting for an ARC meeting to be scheduled. Its members are worried that a development situation similar to the building height controversy in Grover Beach could play out in SLO.
A group of Grover Beach residents wants to vote to lower building heights in November, but officials are concerned about falling out of compliance with state housing laws. In July, the California Department of Housing and Community Development stepped in through a “letter of technical assistance,” and warned the city that the building heights measure could be voided if it passes.
Judson Terrace resident Sharon Roberts told New Times that “unfair” housing density laws are now being enforced.
“Increased density and loss of personal space increases our stress levels and lowers our quality of life,” she said. “Just imagine being 70 to 80 years old, having to drive around looking for a parking space you can comfortably park in, and then having to carry or push your groceries two to three blocks up the street to your apartment.” ∆
Reach Staff Writer Bulbul Rajagopal at brajagopal@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 20-27, 2026.
I like how they say they are not NIMBYs and then proceed to do a bunch of NIMBY things.
Change is the only constant. Dont fight it help it along. Folks like these are the reason housing is so inaccessible in all of the US but particularly in CA.
GH and CW are both correct. Both statements seem to be the usual way thing flow and move forward. We will see what the outcome is.
As someone who lives near Augusta Street, I can confirm that what the residents are saying is correct. This isn’t a NIMBY thing; Augusta Street is no high-end neighborhood; it’s already full of apartment complexes, convalescent homes, and senior housing, and street parking is a struggle even now. And now the city wants to drop 28 apartments with 14 parking spaces into that mix. It’s a boneheaded idea. There are other places in the area — Sydney Street or Flora Street, for example — where there are only single-family homes, and there would be plenty of street parking for a complex like that. I can’t imagine why the city insists on inflicting more congestion on a street that is already at capacity.