CITY OF GROVER BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 14
Placement: Business
Meeting Date: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Bronson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Report from Ad Hoc Council Committee on Measure F-26
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report from the ad hoc Council committee on the building heights and commercial space measure placed on the November 3, 2026 ballot as Measure F-26 and provide input and direction as warranted.
BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2026, the Council provided direction to create an ad hoc Council committee related to the citizen initiative to reduce building heights in commercial and industrial areas and establish a commercial space requirement. This direction was provided in conjunction with the Council’s action to place the initiative as a measure on the November 3, 2026, general election which is now established as Measure F-26. An ad hoc committee consisting of two members of the Council can be established for any purpose by Council action and can meet on an as-needed basis. On June 22, 2026, the Council approved the creation of this ad hoc committee consisting of Council Members McCorry-Driscoll and Tuggle with the intent of meeting with the measure proponents to discuss potential impacts and alternatives that could be considered.
The ad hoc committee met on June 26 with staff support provided by the City Manager, City Attorney, and Community Development Director. The ad hoc committee subsequently sent the three named proponents of the measure (Ron Arnoldsen, Donna De La Rosa, and Michael Wilson) a request on June 26 to meet with the ad hoc committee in July. The proponents responded and declined the offer for a meeting and instead suggested holding a “town hall meeting” for all residents to discuss concerns with building heights and balancing State law with local needs.
These responses were received from Ms. De La Rosa and Mr. Wilson. Separately, the Council received correspondence from Kelvin Coveduck regarding the initiative speaking on behalf of the measure proponents.
Following receipt of these responses, the ad hoc committee met again on June 29, July 1, and July 22 to discuss the committee’s next steps. The ad hoc committee determined no additional meeting requests would be made and decided to submit a report on its efforts to the full Council at the July 27th meeting. Staff will defer to the ad hoc committee members Council Members McCorry-Driscoll and Tuggle to provide this report during the meeting and Council may provide input and direction as warranted. The ad hoc committee also wished to include a copy of a letter the City recently received from the California Housing Defense Fund about Measure F-26 for the Council’s information as shown in Attachment 1. Lastly, the City anticipates receiving a letter from the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) outlining HCD’s review Staff Report: Report from Ad Hoc Council Committee on Measure F-26 Page 2 July 27, 2026
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
process if Measure F-26 is approved and the necessary actions that must be taken for the City to remain compliant with State housing law. This letter will be provided to the Council as well as posted on the agenda page on the City’s website if received by the July 27th meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no funding impacts to this staff report.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:
1) Receive a report from the ad hoc Council committee on the building heights and commercial space measure and provide input and direction as warranted; or 2) Provide alternative direction to staff.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from California Housing Defense Fund
Jul 16, 2026
City of Grover Beach
154 S 8th Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Proposed Amendments to the City’s Zoning Code
Dear Grover Beach City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter as a public comment concerning Measure F-26, a proposed referendum that would amend the City’s zoning code to lower height limits and establish minimum commercial percentages in mixed-use buildings.
CalHDF writes to reinforce what the City’s staff memo and City Attorney memo on the referendum have already pointed out. Specifically, the City may be in violation of SB 330 if it fails to enact a simultaneous upzoning to compensate for the referendum’s reduction in residential zoning capacity, as discussed infra. Furthermore, the referendum, if approved, will contravene the City’s Housing Element, which will need to be revised to address these new constraints.
Of note, CalHDF is currently in litigation with the County of Santa Clara based on a similar action that violated SB 330’s downzoning prohibition. You may read our brief before the California Court of Appeal here.
Background - SB 330
SB 330 prohibits local agencies from reducing residential zoning and general plan capacity in affected geographies (including the City) below what was permitted on January 1, 2018, unless the City concurrently adjusts zoning and general plan capacity elsewhere within its boundaries to preserve its total residential capacity.
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
Attachment 1
Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1) (emphasis added):
Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (h), with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
(A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) or subdivision (h). For purposes of this subparagraph, “reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity.
Additionally, Government Code section 66300, subdivision (h) (emphasis added) provides:
(1) This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city, including the local electorate acting through the initiative process, from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use, or reducing the intensity of land use, ifthe city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure thatthere is no netloss in residential capacity.
(2) (A) For purposes of this subdivision, “concurrently” means the action is approved at the same meeting of the legislative body.
…
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of an initiative measure, “concurrently” means the action is included in the initiative in a manner that ensures the added residential capacity is effective atthe same time as the reduction in residential capacity.
As is discussed below, the referendum, if approved, would violate these provisions of SB 330. 2 of 6
Measure F-26 Would Violate SB 330
Measure F-26 would reduce height limits for mixed-use buildings and require that at least 33% of such mixed-use buildings be devoted to commercial space.
These changes would potentially reduce the City’s residential zoning capacity below that which was in effect on January 1, 2018.
To avoid a violation of SB 330, the City would be obligated to enact concurrent changes “applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.” (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (h)(1).) SB 330 defines “concurrently” as 1) an action approved “at the same meeting” as one where a city reduces residential development capacity and 2) where the city “ensures the added residential capacity is effective at the same time as the reduction in residential capacity.” (Ibid.) The City should be sure to perform a concurrent upzoning of other parcels to make up for the residential capacity that will be lost as a result of this downzoning.
Of note, SB 330’s downzoning prohibition is separate and distinct from the Housing Element Law’s “no net loss” requirements, which the City must also analyze and address.
Measure F-26 Would Violate the Housing Element Law
The proposed height limits and commercial component requirement represent a new governmental constraint on housing, which the City’s Housing Element fails to analyze. A city’s housing element must analyze potential and actual governmental constraints on housing maintenance and production. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) The City’s Housing Element must include a specific analysis of how Measure F-26 will constrain housing development. The current Housing Element does not contain this analysis, obviously.
Furthermore, the Housing Element must include programs to actively remove constraints. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) By imposing new land use regulations (i.e. Measure F-26) that inhibit development, the referendum, if approved, will cause the City’s Housing Element to fall out of compliance with this aspect of Housing Element Law.
Additionally, Measure F-26 runs counter to goals and policies in the City’s Housing Element:
● Goal 1: Provide an adequate supply of sound housing affordable to all residents of Grover Beach.
● Goal 2: Provide a variety of housing choices and increase the supply of new housing to meet the community’s fair share of regional needs.
3 of 6
● Goal 5: Reduce development constraints, where appropriate, encourage creativity, and provide incentives for the development of affordable housing. ● Goal 7: Ensure equal housing opportunities for all persons regardless of age, race, sex, religion, or national origin, and remove potential barriers that prevent choice in housing.
● Policy 1.1: Policy 1.1 The City shall ensure there is an adequate supply of vacant or underutilized land for development or redevelopment at specific densities to meet the housing objectives for affordable housing. This will include meeting or exceeding the RHNA. The City shall also explore effective developer incentives for affordable housing, especially if the development is 100 percent affordable. ● Policy 1.2: The City shall encourage development of a mix of different housing types including multi-family and single-family homes, mixed-use developments, accessory dwelling units, caretaker units, manufactured homes, transitional housing, emergency shelters, and farmworker and employee housing, in appropriate locations.
● Policy 4.3: The City shall support the redevelopment of residential or commercial property for farmworker housing, transitional housing, and other special needs housing, in appropriate locations.
● Policy 6.1: The City shall review site development standards, development review procedures, and development fees and shall modify them if necessary, to ensure they do not unreasonably constrain the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing.
Measure F-26 also contravenes Program 1.1 Adequate Sites; Program 1.5 Not Net Loss; Program 6.2 Annual Review of Housing Constraints; and Program 8.2 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
Instead of reducing constraints and encouraging housing development, including for historically marginalized groups, Measure F-26 does the contrary. Measure F-26 is therefore a direct violation of the City’s Housing Element.
If voters approve Measure F-26, the City may fail to meet its RHNA obligations and violate the No Net Loss Law, i.e., Government Code section 65863. Pursuant to State law, the City must:
“. . . ensure that its housing element inventory. . . can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of regional housing need. . .At no time. . . shall a city . . . by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action permit or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households.” (Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (a).) 4 of 6
Since the City’s Housing Element has already been approved by HCD and adopted, the City must ensure that the proposed Measure F-26 will not interfere with its RHNA obligations for each income category by reducing the residential capacity of any inventoried sites in the Housing Element. If Measure F-26 would reduce an inventoried site’s residential capacity, the City must first make written findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the remaining inventoried sites can still accommodate its RHNA requirements. (Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (b)(1).)
If the remaining inventoried sites cannot accommodate the City’s RHNA requirements, then the City must immediately identify and add additional, adequate sites to its Housing Element to ensure there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. (Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (c)(1).) Any “actions to identify additional sites or rezone must occur before or concurrently with any action or approval to reduce a parcel’s density.” (Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (c)(1); Memorandum from HCD on No Net Loss Law Gov. Code, § 65863 (Oct. 2, 2019).) If those actions “represent a fundamental alteration” to the City’s approved Housing Element, the City is required to amend their Housing Element’s inventoried sites pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), which requires revisions to be submitted to HCD for review, prior to or concurrently with, any action or approval to reduce a parcel’s residential density.
The City may not use Measure F-26 to disapprove certain residential development projects on sites in the City’s housing element site inventory. This follows from the portion of the HAA known as the “baby builder’s remedy,” i.e. Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5)(A):
[A local jurisdiction may not cite inconsistency with the zoning code to] disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project if the housing development project is proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, and consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though it is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
The City must exempt such projects from the provisions of Measure F-26 . ◄►
Our housing crisis was created by cumulative actions taken over decades that collectively reduced residential zoning capacity across the state. SB 330’s downzoning prohibition exists in order to stop this steady erosion of residential zoning capacity. Measure F-26 could potentially violate this state law. If the City’s voters pass Measure F-26, then the City must concurrently upzone other land within the City, as is required by SB 330. It must also amend 5 of 6
its Housing Element to analyze this new constraint and ensure that the City’s zoning will continue to be able to adequately facilitate the development of its RHNA obligations at each income level.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
6 of 6