NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GROVER BEACH CITY COUNCIL A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Grover Beach is hereby called for Tuesday, March 31, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. this City Council Special Meeting will be held in the Council Chamber at City Hall at 154 S. 8th Street, Grover Beach, CA 93433, to consider the matters set forth in the attached Special Meeting Agenda.
________________________________
KASSI DEE, MAYOR
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
GROVER BEACH CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2026 @ 6:00 P.M.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office (805) 473-4568 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Kathy McCorry-Driscoll, Jules Tuggle, Clint Weirick, Mayor Pro Tem Robert Robert, and Mayor Kassi Dee.
Planning Commissioners: Commissioners David Halverson, Anne Holden, Vice-Chair David Swift and Chair Rachel Mann
WORKSHOP
1. Housing and Development Issues - Community Development Director Martin (Recommended Action: Receive information on housing and development issues including State housing law and the City’s response along with key policy considerations and provide input and policy direction to staff regarding potential development code refinements.)
ADJOURNMENT
Staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are on file in the City Clerk’s Office and are available for public inspection and reproduction during normal business hours at City Hall, 154 South 8th Street, Grover Beach, CA. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the appropriate City Department.
Note: This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions or call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 473-4567 for more information. c: Mayor and Council Members Media: The Tribune and New Times City Manager; City Attorney Posted: City Hall
Department Directors
Meetings can be viewed on cable Channel 20 in Grover Beach and are live streamed on www.slospan.org. Members of the public may provide public comment via the phone during the meeting by calling (805) 321-6639 (the phone line will open just prior to the start of the meeting at 6:00 PM). Written public comments can be submitted via email to [email protected]. To ensure distribution to the City Council, please submit comments not later than 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. All correspondence will be distributed to the City Council, posted on the City’s website, and be made part of the official public record of the meeting. Please note, comments will not be read into the record.
CITY OF GROVER BEACH
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT AND DECORUM AT COUNCIL MEETINGS (Pursuant to Resolution No. 07-44, adopted 04-16-07, revised 02-18-2020) The City Council and staff welcomes and encourages civic participation and debate on issues. The Council values the public’s opinion and in every Council meeting invite and encourage the public to address the Council on any matter of interest. The Council adopted these policies and procedures for appropriate conduct and decorum at Council meetings and establish guidance for public participation during Council meetings.
These policies will foster and provide greater clarity to preserve the intent of open government and maintain a positive environment for public input and City Council decision-making.
1.0 DECORUM AND ORDER – IN GENERAL
1.1 The presiding officer is responsible for the maintenance of order and decorum at all times.
1.2 The presiding officer shall determine all points of order subject to the right of any Council member to appeal to the City Council by majority vote. If any appeal is taken, the question shall be “Shall the decision of the presiding officer be sustained” in which event a majority vote of the Council shall govern and conclusively determine such question of order.
1.3 All Council members, staff members and members of the public should speak respectfully and avoid the use of profanity, vulgarity and slanderous comments. Recognizing that the First Amendment precludes the City Council from prohibiting speakers from speaking based upon the content of their speech, the presiding officer shall use their best efforts, short of enforcement action, to remind and encourage all participating in the meeting to keep their speech respectful towards others and within bounds appropriate for children and persons of sensitivity toward course language as a courtesy to others present or otherwise viewing Council meetings.
2.0 DECORUM AND ORDER – COUNCIL MEMBERS
2.1 Manner of Speaking.
Any Council member desiring to speak shall first address the presiding officer. Upon recognition by the presiding officer, the Council member shall speak only to the question under debate.
U2.1(a) Questioning Staff.
A Council member desiring to question the staff should address his question to the City Manager, or, in appropriate cases, the City Clerk or City Attorney, who shall be entitled either to answer the inquiry or to designate some staff member for that purpose. Such a designation may be made at the time of any staff presentation or on the agenda listing for the item.
U2.1(b) Interruptions.
Once recognized, a Council member shall not be interrupted while speaking unless called to order by the presiding officer; unless a point of order is raised by another Council member, or unless the speaker chooses to yield to questions from another Council member.
3.0 DECORUM AND ORDER – STAFF
3.1 City Manager Responsibilities
The City Manager is responsible for ensuring that members of the administrative staff observe the rules of decorum and order set forth in this Policy.
3.2 AAddressing the City Council
Any administrative staff member desiring to address the City Council or members of the public shall first be recognized by the presiding officer. All remarks shall be addressed to the presiding officer and not to any individual Council Member or member of the public. Administrative staff members shall accord the utmost courtesy to the City Council, other administrative staff members and the public.
4.0 DECORUM AND ORDER – MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
4.1 AAddressing the City Council
Any member of the public desiring to address the City Council or members of the public shall first be recognized by the presiding officer at the appropriate place on the agenda. All remarks shall be addressed to the presiding officer and not to any individual Council Member, City Manager, City Attorney or member of the administrative staff or member of the public.
4.2 Time Limitation for Addressing the City Council
Public comment when addressing the City Council shall be generally limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. Depending on the extent of the agenda and the number of persons desiring to speak on an issue, the presiding officer may, at the beginning of the hearing, set a different time limit for each speaker. Any person may speak for a longer period of time upon approval from the presiding officer, when deemed necessary, for instance when a person is speaking on behalf of a group or has a graphic or slide presentation requiring more time.
4.3 Failure to Yield, Disruptions
Any person who refuses to relinquish the floor after their allotted time or while attending the City Council meeting engages in conduct or speech which disrupts the business of the meeting shall be brought to order and/or removed from the room if the sergeant-at-arms is so directed by the presiding officer.
Disruptive remarks from the audience, stamping of feet, clapping, whistles, yells and similar demonstrations shall not be permitted by the presiding officer who may direct the sergeant-at-arms to remove such offenders from the room.
4.4 Prosecution
Aggravated cases shall be prosecuted on appropriate complaint signed by the presiding officer.
5.0 ENFORCEMENT OF DECORUM
5.1 The Chief of Police or his designee shall be the ex-officio sergeant-at-arms of the City Council. The sergeant-at-arms shall carry out all legal and valid orders and instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum in the Council Chamber. Upon instructions from the presiding officer, it shall be the duty of the sergeant-at-arms to remove any disorderly person from the Council Chambers or place the disorderly person under arrest or both.
5.2 As set forth in Government Code Section 54957.9, in the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible or impedes the ability of the Council to hold the meeting, and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the presiding officer may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Duly accredited representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this Section. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City Council from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.
CITY OF GROVER BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 1
Placement: Business
Meeting Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
Jennifer Thompson, City Attorney
PREPARED BY: Megan Martin, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Housing and Development Issues
RECOMMENDATION
Receive information on housing and development issues including State housing law and the City’s response along with key policy considerations and provide input and policy direction to staff regarding potential development code refinements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides the City Council and Planning Commission with an overview of State housing law and the City’s housing obligations, the City’s local regulatory framework shaping recent development activity, and emerging policy topics for discussion.
State Housing Law
State housing law, including the Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill (SB) 330), Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, and Housing Element Law, establish the framework that significantly limits local discretion over housing development projects. In general, housing projects that comply with objective standards must be approved unless specific findings can be made. These laws significantly limit the City’s ability to adopt new standards that would constrain housing production, reduce development capacity, or impose moratoria.
Local Regulatory Framework and Recent Development Activity Recent increase in development activity, particularly along West Grand Avenue, reflects more than two decades of City polices and regulations, including the 2004 Visioning Project, 2008 Economic Development Strategy, 2011 West Grand Avenue Master Plan, 2017 Economic Development Strategy, the 2020-2028 6th Cycle Housing Element, and the 2022 Development Code update. As a result of these planning actions, the City has made significant progress toward meeting its most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation, achieving approximately 98% of its current cycle.
Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 2 March 31, 2026
Key Policy Topics
The pace, scale, and character of recent development has generated concerns from some members of the public and has sparked community conversations on topics such as building height, design style, commercial spaces in mixed-use developments, affordable housing, and coastal views. While the City retains some authority to shape development through objective standards and planning policies, State housing laws significantly limit the ability to restrict housing density or deny compliant projects. Each topic requires careful evaluation to ensure consistency with State law, particularly where new standards could affect development feasibility or reduce residential capacity.
BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, the City of Grover Beach (City) has experienced a significant increase in development activity, particularly along West Grand Avenue. This increase in activity reflects over 20 years of community visioning and subsequent policy decisions and planning efforts to improve the economic viability and vibrancy of Grover Beach. During this time, State housing laws have significantly expanded and now substantially limit the City’s discretion over housing development projects similar to other cities in California. As a result, projects that comply with the City’s adopted Housing Element, development regulations and applicable objective standards must generally be approved without the degree of local discretion the City previously had.
This regulatory framework for housing driven by State law, together with a visible increase in recent development activity, has generated concerns from some community members regarding the pace, scale, and character of development in Grover Beach. Approximately 90 new multifamily housing units have recently been completed along West Grand Avenue with another 265 in the development pipeline (pre-application review through active construction) as part of submitted development applications1
. In the City’s biennial community survey in October 2025, growth and development was cited by respondents as one of the top issues in the city with 50% of respondents indicating there is too much development in Grover Beach compared with 46% who believed it is just right or too little indicating a mix of community opinions about development.
In response to these concerns, the City Council (Council) directed staff to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission (Commission) to better understand the regulatory and policy framework governing housing development, including the limits of local discretion under State housing law. To inform this meeting, this report provides the Council and Commission with an overview of State housing laws and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations, summarizes the City’s implementation efforts and current development context, and identifies key policy issues for Council and Commission discussion.
STATE HOUSING LAW
State housing law operate through a layered statutory framework that substantially limits local discretion over qualifying housing development projects. The Housing Crisis Act (HCA; Senate Bill (SB) 330) of 2019 limits the City’s ability to reduce residential density or impose new constraints on housing development below the levels allowed as of January 1, 20182. The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) further restricts the City’s ability to deny or reduce the density of a housing development project that complies with applicable objective standards, including standards as modified by Density Bonus projects. Density Bonus Law requires the City to grant 1 All residential unit counts are specific to development applications and building permits along or immediately adjacent to West Grand Avenue. 2 Government Code §66300(b)(1)(A) Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 3 March 31, 2026
additional density, incentives, and waivers of development standards when a project includes specified levels of affordable housing3
. Housing Element Law requires jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate housing. Together, these statutes significantly constrain local discretion and require approval of qualifying housing projects unless specific, evidence-based findings can be made under State law.
Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill (SB) 330)
The HCA was adopted in 2019 and later expanded by SB 8 in 2021. The HCA created new statewide rules under California Government Code §66300 et. seq., specifically to address California’s housing shortage by preventing jurisdictions from reducing development capacity.
Key provisions of the HCA include:
• Limits on downzoning. The HCA generally prohibits cities from taking certain actions that would reduce a site’s housing development capacity4 . These “certain actions” include
the adoption of plans or standards that result in net downzoning or otherwise reduce housing capacity. The HCA generally prohibits limits on approvals, permits, or housing units that can be approved for construction.
There is an exception to the downzoning limitations, where so long as density is concurrently increased on other parcels and therefore result in “No Net Loss” in housing capacity or intensity. The “up-zoning” must be completed within 180 days of the downzoning if the action is associated with a request by a project application for a Housing Development Project.
Through 2030, these provisions require a thorough analysis that any legislative action would not lessen housing intensity or change other development standards in a way that would individually or cumulatively reduce a site’s residential development capacity. These restrictions apply to any zone where housing is an allowable use. Any proposed ordinance that would limit or restrict housing development must be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). • Limits on housing moratoria. The HCA prevents cities from adopting moratoria or caps on housing approvals unless necessary to address an immediate threat to public health and safety.
• Preliminary application vesting. The HCA created the optional SB 330 preliminary application process. When a developer submits a complete preliminary application, the project may “vest” to the development standards in effect at that time. These vesting rights are valid through January 1, 2034, for qualifying projects submitted before January 1, 2030. • Limits on public hearings. For qualifying housing development projects that comply with objective standards, the HCA limits local governments to no more than five public hearings for land use approvals (this includes any hearings from the time the application was deemed complete).
3 Government Code §65915 4 Government Code §66300(b)(1)(A) Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 4 March 31, 2026
Housing Accountability Act
The HAA was originally enacted in 1982 to address local opposition to development (HCD HAA Technical Assistance Advisory Memorandum, September 15, 2020). Communities often opposed new housing, especially affordable housing, and, consequently, multiple levels of discretionary review often prevented or delayed development. The HAA was intended to offer protections to certain types of development to overcome the lack of certainty developers experienced. As a result, under the HAA, a local government cannot deny or reduce the density of a “Housing Development Project” that complies with objective development standards unless the agency makes written findings supported by evidence demonstrating a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. The related Government Code clearly provides the State’s policy intent:
“It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.”
-- Government Code §65589.5 (a)(2)(L)
Definition of “Housing Development Project”
A common misperception is that State housing laws, including the HAA, apply only to affordable housing projects. While certain provisions of State law provide additional incentives and protections for affordable housing, the HAA applies broadly to both market-rate and affordable housing development projects. This section clarifies how State law defines a housing development project.
For a development to qualify for protections under HAA, it must meet the definition of a “housing development project”5
. For the affordable housing protections, it must also meet the definitions of housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households6 . A housing development project is
protected by the HAA and includes both market-rate and affordable housing projects, including:
• Residential developments;
• Mixed-use developments, where at least 2/3 of the square footage is residential; and, • Transitional or supportive housing.
Once a project is determined to qualify as a “housing development project”, the HAA establishes rules that guide how a City may review and approve the project (Figure 1). While cities can require compliance with local development standards, those standards must be objective, written, and consistently applied. In general, local standards must:
• Support the City’s ability to meet its RHNA and housing obligations. • Allow development at the density permitted on the site. • Be objective, meaning they do not rely on personal judgment and can be clearly measured or verified by the applicant and the City.
5 Government Code §65589.5(h)(2)
6 Health & Safety Code §50105, §50079.5, and §50093, respectively Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 5 March 31, 2026
Figure 1: Housing Development Project Review Considerations Flowchart Limitations on Conditions of Approval
While cities can require housing development projects to comply with objective and measurable local development standards, certain types of standards and conditions cannot be applied. For example, conditions cannot effectively reduce density or make a project infeasible. “Reducing density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. This could include a condition that directly lowers the overall number of units proposed (i.e., proposed 30 units, local government approves only 20 units). It could also include indirect conditions that result in a lower density (i.e., units conditioned to 600 square feet, proposed site plan would allow 850 square feet per unit). Another example would be a reduction in building height that would result in the project being unable to achieve maximum density allowed under the code and what was originally proposed.
Other examples of limitations that could affect density include:
• Reducing floor area;
• Establishing a commercial ratio;
• Increasing setbacks;
• Reducing allowable lot coverage; or,
• Increasing parking requirements.
Under the HAA, a local agency may only deny, reduce the density of, or impose conditions that make a housing development project infeasible. It may only do so if it makes written findings required by State law. In general, those findings must be supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record, demonstrating that the project would cause a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety and that there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid that impact without denying or reducing the project. If conditions result in fewer units than proposed without the Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 6 March 31, 2026
appropriate written findings supported by evidence, the jurisdiction may be found to be in violation of the HAA, making the jurisdiction subject to legal challenge and potential penalties7 , including
court orders to approve the project and exposure to fines and attorney’s fees.
HAA and Disapproval of a Housing Development Project
Disapproval of a housing development project occurs when a local agency:
• Votes to deny a housing development project application. This includes denial of any land use approval or entitlement required before a building permit can be issued. Examples include denial of a development permit, tentative or final subdivision map, use permit, or design review approval.
• Denies another approval necessary for the project to proceed. Even if the housing development itself is not directly denied, denial of a required entitlement that prevents the project from moving forward may be considered a disapproval under the HAA. • Fails to act within required State decision timelines. Under State law, local governments must act on housing development applications within specific timeframes established in Government Code §65950. These timelines are intended to ensure housing development applications are processed in a timely and predictable manner8 . Failure to meet these
deadlines may be considered a constructive disapproval of the project.
HAA and Preponderance of Evidence
Although the HAA does not eliminate the ability to deny a housing development project, the circumstances by which a project may be denied or approved at a lower density are very limited; and the burden is on the local agency to demonstrate that the required findings to deny the project can be made. If a project complies with applicable objective standards, State law requires the City to approve the project unless the City can make specific written findings demonstrating that the project would create a significant public health or safety impact and that there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid that impact other than denying the project or reducing its density.
State law further requires that those findings be supported by evidence in the administrative record. The evidentiary standard that must be met is known as the “preponderance of the evidence” standard; whereby if a local agency disapproves a housing development project, or approves it at a lower density, the decision must be supported by the following written findings:
• The project would have a specific, adverse impact9 on public health or safety unless the project is denied or approved at a lower density.
• There is no feasible10 way to avoid or mitigate the impact(s) other than to deny the project or reduce its density.
7 Government Code §65589.5
8 Timelines include: 60 days after the lead agency determines that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 60 days after adoption of a Negative Declaration under CEQA; 90 days after certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared pursuant to the CEQA; 60 days after certification of an EIR for projects where at least 49 percent of the units are affordable to very low- or low-income households, subject to certain affordability requirements.
9 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Pursuant to Government Code §65589.5 (a)(3) it is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently. 10 Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 7 March 31, 2026
Generalized concerns regarding neighborhood character, community preference, aesthetics, or compatibility with surrounding development do not meet the legal standard under the HAA to deny or reduce density of a project unless those concerns are tied to an objective public health or safety standard. For example, community concerns that a project is “too large,” “does not fit the neighborhood character,” or may change the visual character of an area would typically not constitute a specific adverse impact on public health or safety under State law11. Because the required findings must meet such a high legal threshold and be supported by substantial evidence in the record, local agencies must carefully evaluate whether the statutory findings can be made before denying a housing development project or reducing its density.
Density Bonus Law
California’s Density Bonus Law (DBL), codified in Government Code §65915, is intended to encourage the development of affordable housing by allowing developers to increase residential density in exchange for providing deed-restricted affordable housing units. Under DBL, a housing development project that provides a specified percentage of deed-restricted affordable units may receive a density bonus, which allows the project to exceed the maximum residential density otherwise permitted by the underlying zone. The amount of additional density allowed increases as the percentage of affordable units within the project increases.
In addition to the density bonus, qualifying projects are also entitled to incentives or concessions, and in certain cases, waivers of development standards. Incentives or concessions may include modifications to development standards such as setbacks, parking requirements, or any zoning regulations that would otherwise restrict the project’s design. Waivers may be granted when a development standard would physically preclude the construction of the project at the density permitted under DBL (e.g., building height).
Because DBL is a State mandate, local governments are generally required to grant the density bonus, incentives, and waivers when the statutory eligibility criteria are met12. Cities may only deny requested incentives or waivers if specific findings can be made demonstrating that the request would result in a significant adverse impact on public health or safety, conflict with State or federal law, or violate historic preservation requirements.
DBL operates with other State laws that limit local discretion over housing development. When a project qualifies for a density bonus, the allowable density for purposes of the HAA, includes the additional units permitted under DBL. In other words, under the HAA, a city generally cannot deny or reduce the density of a DBL project that complies with applicable objective development standards, unless specific findings related to public health or safety can be made. In addition, the HCA prohibits jurisdictions from adopting development standards that reduce residential capacity below what was allowed as of January 1, 2018. Together, these statutes require that local zoning and development standards be structured to allow qualifying housing projects to achieve the density and incentives provided under State law.
11 California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo - California Supreme Court held that when a housing development complies with applicable objective standards, local agencies have limited ability to deny the project based on subjective policy considerations or discretionary judgments. 12 Example of Density Bonus Law project: San Rafael denies appeals against 17-story apartment tower; No Substantial Issue found, Coastal Commission denies appeal of DB project:
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/7/W15b/W15b-7-2023-report.pdf.
Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 8 March 31, 2026
Housing Element Law
California requires every city and county to adopt a Housing Element as part of the General Plan.
The Housing Element must identify sites and programs that demonstrate how a jurisdiction will plan for and accommodate housing units with its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) across various income levels. RHNA represents the number of housing units each jurisdiction must plan for and accommodate through zoning and land use policies during an eight-year housing cycle. It is important to note that RHNA is an obligation for a jurisdiction to plan for rather than a production requirement since jurisdictions typically do not build housing units. RHNA also does not set a cap on housing development as even if a jurisdiction meets or exceeds its RHNA target within the housing cycle, the City must continue to process and approve housing development projects that comply with the applicable development standards under State housing law. Housing Element law also works in conjunction with the HCA and HAA to ensure cities both plan for housing capacity and allow that capacity to be realized through development.
Housing Element Compliance
In addition to establishing housing capacity through zoning and land use policies, State law requires jurisdictions to maintain a Housing Element that is certified by HCD. Maintaining a compliant Housing Element is critical because jurisdictions that fail to adopt or maintain a compliant Element may lose certain local land use authorities and may become subject to additional State housing provisions that further limit local discretion over development. For example, jurisdictions without a compliant Housing Element may be subject to provisions commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy,” which allows certain housing development projects that include affordable housing to exceed local zoning limitations13. Local governments have very limited ability to deny these projects, unless they pose a specific health or safety impact.
The City of Grover Beach’s current RHNA allocation for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2020- 2028) is 369 units. The City has made significant progress toward meeting this obligation with 98% of its RHNA fulfilled in 2025 (2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report). However, preliminary conversations with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) indicate the upcoming 7th Cycle RHNA allocation is expected to increase substantially. Regional agencies have observed that allocations in other counties have approximately doubled compared to the previous cycle, due in part to updated methodology and the inclusion of “cost-burdened household” adjustments. If a similar methodology is applied in San Luis Obispo County, Grover Beach’s allocation could increase to 700 or more units in the next cycle and units from the previous cycle do not count toward the next cycle.
CITY RESPONSE TO STATE HOUSING LAW AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY For more than two decades, the City has worked to attract investment and revitalize the West Grand Avenue commercial corridor. The increase in recent development activity is the result of a series of long-term planning efforts, policy decisions, and economic development initiatives intended to strengthen the local economy, encourage redevelopment and reinvestment, and support housing production. Beginning in 2004, the City’s “Visioning Project” established benchmarks for the City’s growth, investment, and viability. It provided a framework for how the City’s residents and stakeholders believe the community should change over time. A particular area of emphasis focused on the West Grand Avenue corridor, downtown, and the waterfront area. In 2008, an Economic Development Strategy was adopted to target resources on initiatives that would promote economic health and vitality of the community. 13 Examples of Builder’s Remedy projects include: 30-unit condominium project in Los Gatos, 80-unit mixed-use project in La Canada Flintridge, 130-unit multifamily residential in Carpinteria, Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 9 March 31, 2026
In 2011, the City adopted the West Grand Avenue Master Plan (Master Plan), which translated the community’s Visioning Project into a detailed and actionable framework for implementation.
The Master Plan established land use direction, development expectations, and design guidelines to transform West Grand Avenue into a vibrant, economically sound, and pedestrian-oriented corridor. With the adoption of the Master Plan, the City moved from the broad, aspirational vision project to a policy-driven strategy, serving as the operative framework for evaluating and guiding development along this important corridor. However, despite the significant work and effort in preparing and adopting these documents and their underlying aspirational nature, development interest in the city remained relatively stagnant.
In 2014, the City was awarded a Planning and Technical Assistance Grant from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program which enabled the City to update its Economic Development Strategy (2008). Of particular interest to the City was identifying barriers to economic growth and development as well as real estate development feasibility, particularly along West Grand Avenue. On April 17, 2017, the Council accepted the final version of the updated Economic Development Strategy from the outside consultant funded by this grant. The Strategy included a real estate analysis of a hypothetical three-story building on West Grand Avenue (either mixed-use or all residential project) and found that neither project would meet the minimum profitability requirement for development based on current market conditions. Among the many recommendations in the Strategy was “Enhance West Grand Avenue” in part through improving the feasibility of mixed-use development including public investments, fee waivers or deferrals, design assistance, relaxation of development standards, and other incentives.
During this same time, the State began to significantly expand housing legislation in response to the growing statewide housing crisis. These changes, as described earlier in the report, shifted the regulatory landscape, placing increased emphasis on housing supply and accountability at the local level. The more prescriptive State requirements on housing shaped the City’s 2020-2028 Housing Element update with a heightened mandate to plan for and accommodate housing. On November 16, 2020, the Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element which established programs, policies, and implementation measures intended not only to comply with State law, but to remove barriers to development, increase densities on opportunity sites, and position the City to meet its RHNA of 369 new housing units by 2028. In this way, the Housing Element became the catalyst for many of the regulatory changes and development patterns occurring in Grover Beach today.
On November 8, 2021, the Council, following two joint City Council/Planning Commission workshops14 directed staff to implement the adopted Housing Element programs and remove barriers to housing production. A third joint workshop was held April 19, 2022, to review the draft Land Use Element and Development Code updates where Council directed staff to move forward with public hearings to consider adoption of the proposed amendments. Following a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission on May 3, 2022, the Council had a first reading and public hearing on the amendments on May 23, 2022 with a second reading on June 13, 2022 to adopted a comprehensive Development Code update and align with State housing law to facilitate housing production.
These updates focused on streamlining the permitting process, increasing allowable building heights and floor area ratios, and establishing objective design standards to provide clarity and predictability in project review. Consistent with the long-standing vision for the community, the code updates directed higher-density development toward commercial corridors, including West Grand Avenue, while maintaining the character of established residential neighborhoods. The 14 Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meetings: September 7, 2021 and October 5, 2021 Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 10 March 31, 2026
Coastal Commission subsequently certified the Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment on December 16, 2022.
The City’s 2022 Development Code changes were adopted to facilitate mixed-use and infill redevelopment, and those changes have successfully produced a substantial housing pipeline evident in the City’s fulfillment of its 6th Cycle RHNA. While these efforts have successfully positioned the City to accomplish its housing goals, the resulting increase in development activity has generated some community concerns regarding new development projects. Between 2023- 2025, the City received a notable number of development applications, including several largerscale projects than Grover Beach has historically experienced, all of which required discretionary review and approval by the Commission. There continues to be a steady stream of development applications as seen on the City’s major development projects webpage. As these projects have been considered, the Commission began to more closely question and evaluate whether the scale, intensity, and character or designs of the development and whether they were consistent with community expectations and appropriate for the City. These same concerns have been voiced by community members during Commission and Council meetings.
In response, the Commission requested to schedule a discussion about development trends and emerging policy topics, particularly during 2025. On February 3, 202615, the Commission received a presentation from staff and discussed topics relating to single-stairwell reform, height limits, parking regulations for ADUs and unique land uses, regulations and policies for e-bikes, objective design standards and better identifying the “Grover Beach Character,” mixed-use development definition and the balance between residential and commercial uses, and protecting the City’s coastal viewshed.
After considerable discussion, public comment, and Commission deliberation, the Commission voted 2-1 with one Commissioner absent to forward two key policy concerns relating to the mixeduse development and objective design standards to the Council for further discussion and consideration. The Commission also considered and deliberated on whether to include protection of coastal viewsheds as a primary topic of interest, however, there was not a consensus among the three Commissioners to forward this as a priority topic to the Council. The mixed-use and objective design standard topics, along with others are highlighted in the next section as key policy issues for Council and Commission discussion.
KEY POLICY ISSUES FOR COUNCIL AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION While this report has highlighted how State housing law has established the regulatory framework that limits local discretion over certain projects, the City does retain authority to shape how development occurs through local land use policies, zoning regulations, objective development standards, and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Within this degree of local discretion, some residents have asked the Council to consider revised development policies and standards related to mixed-use development ratios, objective design standards, building height, affordable housing, and coastal viewsheds.
The following pages outline five potential policy issues for discussion by the Council and Commission and possible direction by the Council for further consideration as part of future planning and regulatory updates to the City’s planning documents and Development Code. Staff would note that there may be other related policy issues that the Council and Commission might want to discuss in addition to the five listed in this report. 15 Available to watch on SLO-Span: https://slo-span.org/meeting/gbpc_20260203/ Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 11 March 31, 2026
Mixed-Use Development – Commercial to Residential Usage Recent mixed-use development projects have prompted discussion regarding whether the City’s Development Code standards are achieving an appropriate balance between commercial and residential floor area. While mixed-use projects are intended to support both housing production and economic vitality, the Planning Commission during its February 3, 2026, meeting expressed interest in examining whether the current regulations sufficiently prioritize the commercial component in areas designated for visitor-serving and mixed-use development. Specifically, the Commission requested staff investigate whether adoption of the 2022 Development Code amendments included any discussion on a prescribed ratio rather than its current form16. The Council also previously expressed concern about current regulations on commercial spaces with regards to a recent mixed-use development project appeal heard by the Council17.
Staff’s review of the 2022 Development Code amendment record, including associated reports and recorded public meetings, did not identify any discussion or adoption of a prescribed commercial to residential ratio. The definition was intentionally broad to allow flexibility in project design and incentivize development and housing production. This approach was intended to reduce constraints that might limit project feasibility and discourage investment.
In considering whether to establish or refine standards related to commercial and residential ratios, the City must balance the community’s goals with market feasibility and developer interest. Other communities have set limitations on the percentage of certain uses relative to others. For example, a jurisdiction may require a minimum percentage or area of commercial space in a mixed-use project based on lot size or zoning designation. While such standards can provide greater predictability and clarity, they can also raise questions about consistency with recent State housing laws. For example, the HAA and DBL constrain a city’s ability to apply development standards that would have the effect of reducing the density, intensity, or feasibility of housing associated with the mixed-use development that is otherwise allowed within the zone.
In practice, this means that even if the Development Code includes a specific commercial to residential ratio, the City may be required to waive or modify that requirement if an application demonstrates that compliance would preclude or substantially limit housing production. As a practical matter, prescriptive standards can carry legal risk and may not achieve the intended outcome if they cannot be consistently applied to housing projects protected by State law.
Recently, the City received a notice of intent to circulate a ballot initiative that, if passed, would require mixed-use development projects to have a minimum of 33% of a mixed-use building be dedicated to commercial uses and require such commercial uses on the ground floor frontage on the primary street. In light of this, and the Commission and Council’s interest in the topic, the Council may wish to provide direction to staff to further evaluate the potential legal implications of establishing commercial to residential ratio requirements, particularly as it relates to achieving maximum residential density. Such an analysis could include evaluation of how different ratio frameworks interact with existing development standards. The analysis could assess how these requirements may affect site design, unit configuration, and overall project feasibility from a proforma perspective, across a range of parcel sizes and conditions within zones that allow mixeduse development. In addition, staff could also consider alternative approaches to structuring commercial requirements, such as tying commercial space to lot size or frontage rather than as a direct proportion of residential floor area.
16 Development Code Chapter 9, Section 9.10.025 - Land Use Definitions: Mixed-Use Project - A project that combines both residential and commercial uses on the same site. Does not include “Live/Work Unit”, which is separately defined.
17 November 10, 2025, Item 6, Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval DA 24-54, 261 Rockaway Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 12 March 31, 2026
From a policy perspective, if further analysis finds that the proposed changes to commercial spaces in mixed-use projects reduce capacity or reduce the realistic feasibility of sites needed to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA units by income category, as well as maintain adequate capacity and flexibility for future RHNA cycles, the City may need to identify replacement housing capacity consistent with Government Code §65863 (commonly referred to as “No Net Loss” requirement) and coordinate with HCD to ensure continued Housing Element compliance. Lastly, while the City may establish commercial expectations for mixed-use projects through its Development Code, those standards will not apply in all cases where a housing development project qualifies for a density bonus under State law as illustrated earlier in this report.
Objective Design Standards
The City adopted Objective Design Standards (ODS) with the 2022 Development Code Update.
The intent was to implement Housing Element goals and policies and provide clear, objective criteria that reduces barriers to housing and accelerates housing production consistent with the HAA. The City administers ODS for residential and mixed-use development (Development Code Chapter 4.25). The ODS were designed and intended to be flexible allowing a menu of design options that developers can select. They do not require a specific architectural style, building materials, or colors, as Grover Beach has historically not had one single architectural style. ODS checklists were created for single-unit, multi-unit attached, multi-unit detached, mixed-use, and urban dwelling projects to assist applicants with the options. At the time of adoption, staff committed to monitoring the implementation for any issues or inconsistencies and to return to the Council with any potential amendments identified.
During February 3, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners agreed that redevelopment along West Grand Avenue generally reflects compliance with the City’s adopted ODS. However, the Commission also acknowledged the growing negative community feedback that recent development approvals reflected a limited range of architectural expression, characterized by only contemporary or modern building form. While the ODS were intentionally written to provide flexibility and avoid subjective design determinations, Commissioners expressed interest in exploring whether the standards could be refined to encourage a broader range of styles or design approaches while maintaining compliance with State housing law.
The Council may consider whether revisions are warranted. Policy considerations could include:
• Does Grover Beach desire to have a defining architectural style or character? • Should ODS include specific architectural style options or design frameworks that reflect the City’s desired community character?
• Can the existing menu of design elements be expanded to encourage greater variation in building articulation, façade treatments, roof forms, and detailing? • Determine whether additional objective criteria related to materials, building modulation, or vertical and horizontal articulation could improve perceived design quality.
Any modifications to the City’s ODS would need to remain objective, measurable, and consistently applied to ensure continued compliance with the HAA and other State housing laws. Any proposed changes to development standards will need to be evaluated to ensure they do not effectively reduce allowable density in a manner that would conflict with HCA.
It is also important to recognize that architectural similarities among recent projects are not unique to Grover Beach and reflect broader trends in residential and mixed-use development statewide.
Factors such as construction cost efficiencies, building code requirements, fire and energy regulations, and financing considerations often influence building form and materials. As a result, Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 13 March 31, 2026
many projects utilize contemporary architectural approaches that are cost-effective and compatible with modern construction methods. While ODS can influence design outcomes, architectural styles are also shaped by market conditions and development feasibility.
Even if the City were to adopt additional ODS or architectural requirements, a qualifying DBL project could still request waivers or reductions from standards that would reduce costs, or otherwise physically preclude construction of the project from achieving the allowed density bonus.
If the Council directs staff to pursue this effort, ODS must be carefully structured so that the revisions guide building design and quality without functioning as a constraint that limits the density otherwise permitted under State law. Staff would recommend that such an effort be part of the goals, policies, and programs, developed as part of the 7th Cycle Housing Element which will begin in Summer 2026, similar to the 2022 ODS adoption which implemented the 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 1.818.
Building Height Limits
The City’s Development Code allows a maximum building height of 55 feet (55’) within the Commercial Business (CB), CB Open (CBO), and Visitor Serving (VS), and Coastal VS (CVS), and a maximum of 40 feet (40’) within industrial zones. The ballot initiative in circulation would reduce these limits to 40’ in the CB, CBO, VS, and CVS zones and 33’ in industrial zones, while also modifying how building height is measured. Specifically, the initiative would change the method of measuring height to include architectural appurtenances when determining overall building height creating a much more restrictive building envelope than what is currently allowed.
The initiative would also create a three-story maximum building standard in addition to the specific maximum height.
Because building height can directly influence the amount of floor area and achievable density that can be constructed on a site, the Council may wish to direct staff to evaluate whether proposed changes to height standards could affect maximum achievable residential density and overall development capacity within certain zones. Such an analysis would include review of how reduced height limits interact with other development code standards, including floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, setbacks, parking requirements, site configuration, landscaping standards.
This evaluation could be conducted using prototype development scenarios and parcel-level analysis to assess a range of site conditions and development patterns within the initiative affected zones. The analysis could also consider how changes to height measurement and introduction of a story limit may affect building design and vertical mixed-use configurations.
While reducing the allowable building envelope or introducing additional development requirements may not directly reduce the number of housing units that can be constructed on a site, such standards may influence project design in ways that affect unit size and housing diversity. Developers may respond by reducing average unit size to accommodate required commercial space, parking, and other development standards within a constrained building 18 SB 2 Implementation. As part of the City’s Senate Bill (SB) 2 grant workplan the City plans to amend the Land Use Element and Development Code to allow more residential development without discretionary review (i.e., by right) which will include preparing objective design standards for residential uses allowed by right and mixed-use projects if allowed by right. This will also include the elimination of subjective development standards/policies which shall be replaced with objective design standards as required by Government Code Section 65589. The City will analyze how and where that should happen through a public process. In addition, the City will consider establishing an inclusionary housing ordinance and/or increased allowances for density bonuses above and beyond what is required by state law. The results of the input received during the public process will guide the approach to the changes to City regulations to achieve the goal of allowing and permitting more housing and a wider variety of housing…
Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 14 March 31, 2026
envelope. Although smaller units do not necessarily reduce allowable density, they can affect housing diversity and the availability of larger family-oriented units. If development standards ultimately reduce the realistic development capacity of Housing Element sites or constrain the feasibility of housing production, the City may need to evaluate those changes in the context of State housing law, including Fair Housing Law, HCA, and HAA.
The ballot initiative summary prepared by the City Attorney also notes that the City’s current Housing Element relied on the existing height limits when identifying adequate site capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA. If building heights are reduced, the City may be required to evaluate whether sufficient development capacity remains available to accommodate housing units previously assumed within the Housing Element inventory. From a policy perspective, if further analysis determines that reduced building heights diminish the realistic feasibility of sites needed to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA obligations by income category, the City may be required by State housing law to identify replacement capacity in other zoning areas elsewhere in the community.
As mentioned in the mixed-use section, while the City may establish building height limits through its Development Code, those limits will not apply in all circumstances. Housing development projects that qualify under Density Bonus Law (Government Code §65915) may request waivers or reductions of development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the permitted density bonus. In those circumstances, a qualifying project may request a waiver from local height limits if the applicant demonstrates that compliance would prevent the project from achieving the allowed density. In other words, even if the City were to adopt lower height limits, qualifying DBL projects could still request additional height where necessary to achieve the permitted density bonus, subject to the findings required under State law.
Lastly, pursuant to HCA (SB 330), development standards applicable to a housing development project are generally “locked in” at the time a preliminary application is submitted. As a result, any future reductions in allowable building height or commercial ratio would not apply to projects that have already submitted a complete SB 330 application, and the City is further limited from adopting standards that would reduce residential development capacity below levels in effect as of January 1, 2018.
Affordable Housing
Construction of and access to affordable housing has been raised repeatedly regarding development activity in the city. Community members have expressed concern that recent housing development consists only of market-rate units and that the City should limit or stop market-rate housing development in favor of affordable housing. Staff would note that this is not a new issue to the City as affordable housing has been a discussion topic numerous times over many years including during the update of the Development Code in 2022.
While the City has long had a goal of increasing the availability of affordable housing, especially for lower-income households, it is important to clarify the limits of local government authority in directing the type of housing that private property owners choose to develop. In California, both market-rate and affordable housing is typically constructed by private developers on privately owned land. In the absence of a specific regulation such as an inclusionary housing ordinance19, 19 Inclusionary housing programs are local policies that are intended to help create affordable housing for lower income families. An inclusionary housing program might require developers to sell or rent 10 to 30 percent of new residential units to lower-income residents. Programs partially offset the cost of providing affordable units by offering developers one or more incentives such as tax abatements, parking reductions, or the right to build at higher densities.
Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 15 March 31, 2026
cities generally cannot require private property owners to construct deed-restricted affordable units as a condition of development approval. Property owners retain the right to develop their property in accordance with a city’s Development Code and applicable State housing laws. As a result, local governments typically rely on a combination of incentives, funding programs, land donation, and partnerships with nonprofit housing providers to facilitate the development of affordable housing.
The City has implemented various programs and partnerships intended to increase housing opportunities for lower-income households and individuals experiencing housing instability. On July 6, 2020, the Council selected People’s Self-Help Housing and the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo to develop an affordable housing project on approximately an acre of City-owned land at 164 South 13th Street which the City donated as a contribution towards this project. The developers purchased adjacent private property at 1206 West Grand Avenue and ultimately constructed a 53-unit deed-restricted affordable housing project called Cleaver and Clark Commons. This project is now occupied with a grand opening scheduled in May.
The City has also long supported the 5Cities Homeless Coalition through grant funding to support operations at two emergency shelter facilities, Cabins for Change and Balay Ko on Barca, that collectively provide housing and supportive services for approximately 50 unhoused individuals.
For this fiscal year (July 1, 2025 – March 25, 2026), 5CHC has served 131 individuals. In 2025, they served 180. The City has also been awarded nearly $12 million in grant funding administered through the State’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program since 2013 to support projects and programs that directly benefit low-income residents.
Beyond direct funding and housing partnerships, the City adopted several regulatory tools intended to support affordable housing production. Through the adoption of its Density Bonus Ordinance (Development Code Chapter 3.20), the City has facilitated the development of additional deed-restricted affordable housing units by allowing developers to increase density in exchange for providing affordable units consistent with State DBL. The City has also adopted a Fractional Density Ordinance for multi-unit developments (Development Code Section 3.10.025), which allows fractional density that encourages additional housing units and supports a broader range of housing types, including smaller units that may be more attainable for certain households.
These policies, combined with the City’s Housing Element programs and recent Development Code updates, are intended to create opportunities for housing across a range of income levels.
However, without dedicated funding sources or regulatory programs such as inclusionary housing requirements, local governments cannot mandate that private developers construct specific numbers of affordable housing units within otherwise market-rate projects. Grover Beach is the only city in San Luis Obispo County without an inclusionary housing ordinance though a recent legal challenge to such an ordinance in San Luis Obispo points to potential legal risks20.
For this reason, the City’s approach to affordable housing has relied on a combination of regulatory incentives, partnerships with nonprofit housing developers, and pursuit of external funding sources. While market-rate housing production alone does not address all housing affordability challenges, it remains an important component of the overall housing supply and can help relieve housing demand pressures while the City continues to pursue additional strategies to support affordable housing development.
20 SLO Developers Charged $100K for affordable housing fee. Is it Constitutional? New Times; March 6, 2026; Joan Lynch: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article314940685.html Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 16 March 31, 2026
Coastal Viewsheds
Community discussions surrounding recent development activity have highlighted interest in protecting views toward the coastline. In particular, some community members have suggested that streets or corridors within the coastal zone of the city be formally recognized as “scenic” or “coastal viewsheds”, with development regulations designed to preserve views toward the ocean and dunes. These points reflect a desire to ensure new development maintains visual connections to the coastline and a perceived city with coastal character.
The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) does not designate specific scenic corridors, public viewing areas, or mapped coastal viewsheds. Instead, the LCP identifies nine “Visual Resource Areas” intended to describe the character and sensitivity of each area of the coastal zone. The LCP addresses visual resources in each of these areas through broader policies that require that projects be sited and designed to minimize adverse visual impacts, but they do not establish objective criteria requiring preservation of specific view corridors.
The absence of designated scenic corridors in the LCP seems to reflect the historic development pattern and physical conditions within the Grover Beach coastal zone. Much of the area east of Highway 1 and the railroad is characterized by industrial and visitor-serving uses, commercial development, and transportation infrastructure. As a result, the LCP policies for areas east of Highway 1 focus on ensuring visual compatibility of development within the built environment, rather than identifying and preserving specific view corridors.
The City’s Development Code standards applicable to these areas, including building heights, were reviewed and certified by the Coastal Commission in 2022 as consistent with the City’s LCP and the Coastal Act. Accordingly, development that complies with these objective standards, including the permitted building envelope, is presumed consistent with coastal resource protection policies, including those related to visual resources. If the Council wished to consider stronger policies to protect coastal views toward the ocean, this would require policy changes to the City’s LCP, including:
• Identifying and mapping public viewing areas or scenic corridors • Establishing objective design standards related to view protection • Developing measurable criteria for evaluating visual impacts Any changes to the LCP will require an LCP Amendment and review by the Coastal Commission.
This process would require:
• Visual resource and scenic corridor study
• Public engagement and policy development
• Preparation of an LCP amendment
• Planning Commission and City Council hearings
• Coastal Commission certification
This effort would involve a multi-phase planning process and require dedicated staff resources and consultant support to complete. Preparation of a scenic corridor or visual resource study will require specialized planning and visual analysis expertise. In 2020, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), developed a Planning Cost Guide to provide a range of costs associated with preparation of various planning documents which provides guidance for planning agencies around the State in doing such work. As this effort would require a consultant-led planning effort, studies involving visual simulations, public outreach, policy recommendations and design standards, an LCP amendment, and Commission and Council meetings, staff estimates this effort Staff Report: Joint Council and Commission Meeting on Housing and Development Issues Page 17 March 31, 2026
would cost approximately $200,00021, depending on the scope (i.e., number of streets and corridors evaluated, level of visual modeling required, extent of public engagement), and environmental review requirements. This would need to be funded through the City’s General Fund and staff is not aware of any outside grants that would fund this work.
For a precise estimate, a Request for Proposal (RFP) process is typically used to define the geographic area(s), scope of work, regulatory standards (State and federal), and level of environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no funding impacts to this staff report. However, direction provided by the Council on any of the policy topics discussed in this report would require additional staff analysis, public engagement, and potential preparation of Development Code or Local Coastal Program amendments. These efforts would require staff time and resources, and any associated fiscal impacts would be evaluated and presented to the Council at the time those topics are brought forward for further consideration.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:
1. Receive and file the staff report and presentation on Housing and Development, and direct staff on any of the outlined policy topics associated with this report;
2. Direct staff to return with additional information on any of the outlined policy topics associated with this report; or,
3. Provide alternative direction to staff.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. 21 Staff assumes this effort would include the following three components: Land Use Element update (small jurisdiction, major overhaul, $50,000), to include policy development for design standards (average of $77,179), and environmental review (average $55,174).
Multi-Year Goals
☐ Public Safety and Community Services ☒ Economic Development and Housing ☐ Community Infrastructure ☐ Financial and Organization Sustainability Council Priorities
☐ Water & Wastewater Infrastructure ☒ Community Engagement ☐ Street Improvements and Maintenance