Should SLO County beach city restrict tall buildings? Voters will decide
A citizen-led initiative to limit building heights in Grover Beach will be on the November ballot — but if it passes, the city could quickly be in violation of state housing laws.
After proponents collected enough valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot, the Grover Beach City Council had two choices Monday night: Immediately adopt the ordinance proposed by the initiative without any alteration or approve a resolution to move the measure forward to the voters.
Council members unanimously voted to let residents decide at the general election.
On Nov. 3, registered voters will choose whether the city should cap buildings in industrial zoning districts at 33 feet and mixed-use building heights at 40 feet. It would also require a minimum of 33% of a mixed-use building be dedicated to commercial space.
The city currently restricts industrial-zoned building heights at 40 feet and mixed-use buildings at 55 feet. If the measure succeeds, the difference would effectively limit buildings to a maximum height of three stories rather than up to the current five stories. It would also result in the potential reduction of hundreds of residential units in central business zones, according to the city’s staff report.
Local residents Kelvin Coveduck and Mike Wilson first started the petition in February amid growing concerns that downtown development was destroying Grover Beach’s small-town coastal charm and ocean views.
“This started a year ago with the neighbor and I talking over the fence, so I’m looking forward to it going to the people and direct democracy working,” Coveduck said at the meeting.
Building heights restriction could violate state housing laws
If the building heights ordinance is adopted in Grover Beach, the city risks being in violation of several California housing laws, including the Housing Crisis Act and Housing Element Law.
The Housing Crisis Act bars local agencies from reducing housing capacity through 2034, effectively limiting cities’ ability to adopt rules that cut housing density, according to a city presentation.
Meanwhile, the Housing Element Law requires cities to keep sufficient zoning capacity to accommodate across all income levels during the eight-year housing cycle.
“Reducing height and requiring a specific commercial to residential ratio in mixed-use projects can effectively reduce the residential share, or add constraints that discourage housing production,” in effect, possibly violating the law, the presentation said.
To avoid breaking the law, Grover Beach would have to find alternative sites across the city to upzone to offset reduced residential density caused by the ordinance.
“The bottom line is that the units would have to go somewhere, and there are a number of different options for where those units could and would have to go,” Grover Beach City Manager Matt Bronson said.
Hypothetically, if upzoning doesn’t happen quickly enough, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development determines that Grover Beach is in “nonconformance” of state housing, the city could be forced to pay at least $10,000 every month it’s out of compliance, according to the city staff report.
Also, once the city is in noncompliance, its housing element could be decertified, allowing developers to bypass local zoning regulations, like height limits, design standards and density restrictions, through what’s known as the “Builder’s Remedy.” In this scenario, Grover Beach would effectively “lose all meaningful local land use authority,” the report said.
“Jurisdictions that have faced decertification have experienced significant and unwanted development and applications for development that they have no legal authority to deny,” the report said, like a proposed 18-story project in Carpinteria.
Grover Beach residents split over building heights measure
On Monday night, Grover Beach residents packed the City Council meeting, and more than 20 people spoke during an hour of public comment.
Mayoral candidate and city planning commissioner David Swift said that the citizen-led movement was launched because the council failed to hear the public, resulting in an action that “may not be the best thing for you or for the state.”
“This is one more case of the citizens taking matters into their own hands, which makes it an ‘oops’ and leaves you guys stuck,” he said.
Several others said the ordinance was necessary to protect the city’s aesthetic value and character.
Longtime resident Randy Fiser said that the community at large was opposed to all tall buildings, calling them a “monstrosity.”
However, Grover Beach resident and local real estate agent Patrick Bashforth said the conversation was missing younger voices.
“A lot of people that are of my generation ... are moving to the area because of the excitement that they see going on, because they see the potential that it has to become an area where we have new, fun and exciting business.”
Jocelyn Brennan, the executive director of the Home Builders Association of the Central Coast, said the proposed ordinance would limit the city’s housing development capacity, possibly putting Grover Beach in “substantial legal risk.”
“We respectfully urge the city to avoid adopting such provisions that contravene state law and to ensure that any action taken is fully consistent with state housing law,” she wrote in a letter to the city.
City Council member Clint Weirick said he heard the community “loud and clear,” but he wanted to avoid a Builder’s Remedy situation and let voters decide on the measure.
“I’m not putting our community in a tough spot that I don’t know for sure that we can get out of, so I do want to send it to voters,” he said. “I do want to be able to say that when it comes to accountability, you’re accountable for your actions as a voter too, it’s not just the council.”
Mayor Kassi Dee also said residents should choose this November.
“The state, the Housing Crisis Act, the Housing Element Law — this is very, very real, and it has citywide impacts,” she said. “So, the city should be able to vote on this, and that is where I stand.”
