As a controversial citizen-led measure to limit building heights in Grover Beach hurtles toward the November ballot, its advocates are at odds with city officials about following the will of the public or complying with state housing laws.
The Grover Beach City Council unanimously agreed to submit the proposed ordinance to voters despite city staff alerting them that a successful ballot measure could result in reduced housing capacity.
Councilmember Jules Tuggle told New Times she voted for it in an effort to balance leadership and public will.
“If the majority of our citizens want to push back on state housing requirements, then I do believe they have the prerogative to do that,” she said.
At its following June 22 meeting, the council decided to form an ad hoc committee comprising Tuggle and Councilmember Kathy McCorry-Driscoll to discuss impacts of and alternatives to the proposed measure with its proponents.
“We’re not in a fight against each other. One of my goals with this ad hoc committee is that the proponents talk directly with the state, and we stop being the middleman,” Tuggle said at the meeting. “You can’t as a City Council member knowingly pass an ordinance that you know is going to get us sued. That is not good leadership.”
But the council’s deliberation rubbed proponents the wrong way.
Four days after the meeting, three citizens—former Grover Beach Mayor Ron Arnoldsen, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner Donna De La Rosa, and resident Mike Wilson—were set to meet with the ad hoc committee. They claimed in a statement that the committee was trying to change or withdraw the measure.
“Election law does not allow for amending the initiative measure,” their statement said. “Agreeing to changes in exchange for removing it from the ballot would betray the trust placed in us by the 1,256 citizens who drafted, distributed, and signed it for the voters to decide.”
Discussion about Grover Beach’s changing skyline started in October 2025 when resident Kelvin Coveduck began requesting a City Council discussion.
‘Agreeing to changes in exchange for removing it
from the ballot would betray the trust placed in us
by the 1,256 citizens who drafted, distributed,
and signed it for the voters to decide.’
—Ron Arnoldsen, Mike Wilson, and Donna De La Rosa; No More Tall Buildings initiative proponents
Like-minded Grover Beach locals were frustrated with a string of new developments on the western end of downtown Grover Beach, such as the Bella Vista Villas from Empire Development and Construction and Coastal Community Builders projects called Trinity and Solstice.
In March 2026, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting about housing and development policy before a packed room of residents, business owners, and developers.
Not wanting to wait any longer, a citizens group called Save Grover Beach—which Coveduck belongs to—was already gathering signatures to qualify an initiative for the November ballot.
Now, voters must decide if they want developers to set aside 33 percent of mixed-use buildings for commercial use, reduce the height of buildings in commercial zoning districts to 40 feet, and ensure buildings in industrial zones aren’t taller than 33 feet.
Coveduck was also one of the residents who agreed to speak with the ad hoc committee. He told New Times he doesn’t consider himself a proponent of the initiative, but the proponents’ statement listed him as an “initiative spokesperson and organizer.”
“My interpretation of what the proponents and myself would do is we would seek solutions to the consequences of the passing of the citizens initiative,” he said. “In other words, we would be looking for solutions to increase our regional housing needs, our RHNA [Regional Housing Needs Allocation] numbers … and work together to prevent the city from being sued by the state.”
Tuggle told New Times that an alternative to the initiative exists: The City Council could adopt an ordinance.
“I really believed that providing more information might bring us to a more nuanced ordinance that could get needs and desires met of maybe slowing down growth,” Tuggle said. “Maybe not having 30 percent commercial because that’s kind of a big stumbling block to keeping our housing numbers.”
She added that if the City Council enacted such an ordinance, it would be up to the initiative’s advocates to decide if they wanted to pull the measure from the ballot.
On June 29, Arnoldsen, De La Rosa, and Wilson declined to meet with the ad hoc committee after the city reached out to each of them with an invitation.
“I believe a special town hall meeting to include all residents would be the most appropriate way to accomplish this,” De La Rosa wrote in her email response to the city.
The rejection means that the measure must play itself out on the ballot.
Grover Beach has almost hit its RHNA numbers—the total housing units each jurisdiction must plan for and accommodate through zoning and land use policies over an eight-year cycle.
But California’s housing laws limit the city’s ability to adopt new standards that would constrain housing production and reduce development capacity.
City Manager Matthew Bronson told New Times that the legal landscape changed in 2019.
“That was really the first moment where the state of California declared the lack of housing … as a crisis and put in place laws that are designed to really allow housing development to proceed across local communities,” he said. “It took away significant discretion that cities and counties had.”
Staff has informed council members that statutes like the Housing Crisis Act, the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Element Law, and Density Bonus Law require the city to approve qualified housing development projects unless it can prove those structures are threats to public health and safety.
Getting kicked out of compliance could not only expose Grover Beach to lawsuits but also Builder’s Remedy, which enables developers to bypass local laws when a city’s housing element doesn’t comply with the state.
“If we’re out of compliance and we don’t have a certified housing element anymore, then a developer can come in and propose any project of any size, of any height, with any density, and the city does not have any authority over that project,” Bronson said.
Coveduck suggested that the city could promote accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to increase its housing numbers without raising building heights.
Although ADUs are counted in the RHNA numbers, Bronson said they can’t be considered when making up for lost housing units.
If the citizens initiative passes, the city estimates a loss of 544 potential units. Hiring a consultant to verify that reduction comes with a price tag between $500,000 and
$1 million.
Now, proponents are racing to spread the word about the initiative and submit information for voter materials before the filing period closes on Aug. 7.
City officials are waiting for a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development that outlines how Grover Beach must remain compliant with state law if the citizens measure is approved. Bronson anticipates receiving the letter this month.
“If the measure was approved, that becomes our code, that becomes our law,” he said. “So we will have to find a way, have to find a place, for those units elsewhere in the city.” ∆
Reach Staff Writer Bulbul Rajagopal at brajagopal@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in July 9-16, 2026.
At a time that the system government push on local cities citizens&the whole state of California for a convienent way out im pleased citizens and of course elected officials use common sense b there rights to protect the citizens and community they live in. Sensible policies truths fairness kindness for all on this earth we share with creatures created( humans, structures, wildlife,sky, environment, livlihood). We are not a people of China, Russia, South Korea. We are United States Of America, in world,children of Yahuah(Hebrew original creator)Should b benefit of wat Yahuah wants for all his children. In righteousness naborly love,peace